Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Register of Sasines (Scotland) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am most grateful to hon. Members for their support for this Bill. As my hon. Friends recognised in the debate in Committee on 4 February 1987, this is a modest three-clause Bill which will aid house buyers in Scotland. The sasines register will remain unaltered in its content and availability to the public. However, the Bill will allow the methods of registration to be improved. It will achieve this by removing the present legislative barriers to the use of modern technology and by allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of methods of operation. In other words, records of deeds may be held in microfiche, or by any other new technological method, rather than in the bound volumes containing copies of the deeds required under present legislation.
That will benefit home buyers in Scotland in two ways. The Department of Registers of Scotland which prepares the sasines register will be able to use released staffing resources to speed up registration processes. However, the main initial advantage will be in providing searchers with several microfiche copies so that they do not have to wait until the bound volume is free.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I record our thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for sponsoring this legislative measure.
The Bill is not controversial. It will allow welcome improvements to be made in the registration and storage processes of the sasines register in the light of modern technology. I am pleased to say there will be benefits—as the hon. Gentleman has stated—for the public, the Department of Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Record Office which produce and manage the register.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Agricultural Training Board Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have joined in sponsoring the Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials for the advice and assistance that they have given to date. I have received considerable help from them, and I am most grateful. I should like to record my thanks also to the agricultural training board for the guidance that it has given.
This Bill, like the Register of Sasines (Scotland) Bill, is a straightforward and simple measure that seeks to modify two of the constraints on the agricultural training board. First, it modifies the constraint that requires the board to offer training only to people who are involved in agriculture. By so doing, it enables the board to offer training to people outside the industry who are involved in agriculture-based skills and allows it to charge fees for that. That will improve its income-earning potential. Secondly, it enables the board to offer skilled training, in non-agricultural skills, to people involved in agriculture to enable them to diversify in the face of the huge surpluses being produced by the industry.
There is one improving amendment which enables those who have previously been involved in agriculture to be trained. As a result the measure will be useful for the agriculture industry. It will enable the ATB to improve its service to the industry.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have sponsored the Bill and helped to take it through Committee. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who is a co-sponsor of the Bill, informed me that he could not be present today because he was involved in constituency matters. I am also grateful for his support.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: We in the alliance welcome this modest Bill, which contains useful proposals, widening the remit of the ATB and encouraging ancillary activities which could be undertaken on farms in association with main agricultural or horticultural businesses.
The proposals have been given added point by the news this week that the ATB, responding to high demand, had to re-run a course on free-range poultry and will next week repeat a course on fish hatchery management. Those are both subjects of diversification which confirm a growing interest in the application of such techniques, and I hope that they will both gain in popularity.
However, the Government should take note that the activities of the ATB will not be a substitute for the recovery of the farming industry. Indeed, I wonder whether Ministers appreciate the problems of small farmers in particular as new charges are introduced in the dairy sector, in plant and seed exports and in the beef sector for artificial insemination. Obviously the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) has at heart the interest of rural communities and industries, and I am pleased to support the Third Reading.

Dr. John Marek: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) and for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields), who spoke about the problems facing small farmers. The Bill will benefit the agriculture industry and the Opposition welcome it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill, hope that it passes all its stages this morning, and wish it well on its way through the other place.

The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agiculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on introducing this more than useful measure which is a precursor of things to come.
In reply to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields), may I say that the Government grant to the ATB this year is nearly £8 million. The ATB is the only industrial training organisation to be so funded; all others operate on a direct levy system, involving the respective industries. Therefore, in the circumstances our agriculture is already doing rather well. As diversification grows there may be room to move into other areas, but in the present circumstances agriculture is doing well.
The amount of money in the pot to be shared out is limited and it has been decided to put the money for diversification towards capital costs. If more had been made available for training, less would have been left for capital costs. There is no money resolution to the Bill, and that was fully explained in Committee.
Grants for tourism and craft industries were introduced in the Agriculture Improvement Scheme and there will be socio-economic advice and aid from special advisers. Our new package of diversifications which goes much further will provide capital grants on a wide range of diversification activities, both in the less favoured areas and in the lowlands, such as Ryedale. Details are still to be settled and will be the subject of consultations with industry and other parties. Possible areas of discussion are value-added food processing, the processing of other agricultural products such as wood and skins, amenity and recreation grants, pony trekking and more extensive tourism and craft grants. There will also be grants for marketing the products of diversified farm businesses.
It may be said that diversification only scratches the surface, but the Department and I believe that it is a solid beginning. I fully accept the hon. Lady's point that we must do all we can to look after our small farmers because, whatever else goes, the land remains. The land runs from the tip of Cornwall to the north of Scotland and only farmers, often small farmers, can look after it properly. We cannot expect local government officers or park keepers to do that, although our national parks are a great glory. The land will not evolve or remain beautiful unless we rely on farmers to look after it. That is why we are keen that farm diversification should not be seen as a way of taking people off the land into other areas, but rather as a way of keeping farms going and families involved in other activities.
At first sight it may seem offensive to a lady, instead of feeding the calves, to do bed and breakfast on her beautiful farm for three or four couples who have come to see the view. She may have found the calves better company. But

at the end of the day bed and breakfast may be her better source of income. Therefore, we must encourage diversification in all its forms. It can play an important role in sustaining farm incomes through the difficult times ahead for the farming industry.
Diversification includes any commercial activity carried out by farmers, other than the production of a staple crop and livestock husbandry. It may involve processing farm products so that they can be sold more profitably, providing facilities for recreation or attracting visitors to stay on the farm. Such diversification benefits farmers, taxpayers and consumers.
First, diversification is obviously beneficial to farmers who can maintain or increase their income and diversify the source from which it comes, without at the same time adding to the production of crops, for which there is no immediate market and which must be put into costly storage. None of us wants to encourage more huge food mountains. They are an embarrassment to the civilised world because they cost money and we have not found efficient, sensible ways of sending them to the Third world. Secondly, taxpayers benefit as a result of lower common agricultural policy costs. Thirdly, diversification benefits anyone and everyone who enjoys or could enjoy the countryside as a place of beauty, interest or leisure and good quality fresh farmhouse foods.
A further benefit is the role of diversification in exploiting the various skills and experience of farm family members and using them to develop the farm business to the benefit of the family as a whole. Too often farmers find themselves failing to utilise to the full their assets of buildings, land and people. Diversification is a way of getting the maximum return from all those, including farm personnel. It can, for example, provide a focus for the catering skills of the farm wife or for the business acumen of a son or daughter. In that way diversification can contribute to the strength of the farm family and provide a wide range of opportunities for skilled farm labourers.
I recognise that it is not always easy for a farmer to embark on a diversification project, particularly when a lot of investment is involved. It was with that in mind that in 1985 the Government introduced craft and tourism grants in less favoured areas. They covered 25 per cent. of total expenditure up to £24,000. Some imaginative proposals have already been put forward for such grants.
Last year, the Government took the further step of introducing the Agriculture Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act gives power to extend the scope of existing capital grants to a wider range of ancillary farm-based businesses. On 9 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced his intention to introduce new grants in the near future. In consultation with the industry and other interested parties, we are now considering the details of the new schemes. The other interested parties will include the agricultural training board. In addition to capital grants, the schemes will include grants for marketing— that is for market research and feasibility studies—so that farmers can be sure of an outlet for the products of their diversified businesses.
One cannot over-emphasise the need for marketing. The need for marketing of British farm products is continuing. Grants, either capital or marketing, are only part of the story. Advice to farmers about the


opportunities available to them to diversify from their existing base can often prove to be just as valuable as financial assistance from the Government.
Through our network of regional socio-economic advisers— that name sounds a bit grim to me— and Agricultural Development and Advisory Service advisers the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is able to advise farmers on how they might best develop what may be under-used farm resources, such as buildings, land and people, and particularly the varied skills of their families. ADAS continues to provide free of charge general advice on diversification. It also refers farmers to other agencies such as the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas—COSIRA—which does a good job in my constituency. It is skilled not only in providing grants but in preparing a business plan for small farmers or business men for the first time. The Countryside Commission also offers grants and advice on diversification. The farm woodlands scheme was introduced to encourage planting on agricultural land as part of a farming enterprise. We are trying to expand not only traditional forestry in regard to conifers but broadleaf trees and various diversification schemes. We have also introduced the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. A great deal of diversification actitivy is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was wise to choose this subject for legislation. As the years go by, his wisdom will be remarked upon by successive generations of farmers. He will he lucky to have such a Bill on the statute book. He has made it clear that the Bill, although modest in appearance, is of great significance, particularly to the rural community and its economy, and to amenity workers, whether they are rural or urban based.
I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend when he spoke of the value and good sense of the amendment to the first main provision of the Bill relating to diversification training which was suggested in Committee by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I thank Opposition Members for the fair wind that they have given the Bill and the help that they gave us in Committee and in the House. I am sure that the farming industry will be pleased to see that this matter has not become a political football and that the whole House supports my hon. Friend's Bill. That people who were formerly within the industry should also have access to the board's training facilities can only be a good thing. It will help those who, for whatever reasons, have ceased to work in agriculture to find new employment opportunities.
The Government attach great importance to the encouragement of farm diversification and the role that it can play on sustaining farm incomes. There are other

benefits for farmers taxpayers and consumers. First, it is obviously beneficial to the farmer who is able to maintain or increase his income and diversify the source from which it comes without, at the same time, adding to the production of crops for which there is no immediate market and which must go into costly storage. Secondly, there is a benefit to the taxpayer as a result of lower CAP support costs. Thirdly, diversification benefits anybody who enjoys the countryside. The countryside is not a museum or a park; it is a living, growing, thriving enterprise. People who visit the countryside should realise that they are going to an area of activity and work and should treat it with respect.
Additionally, diversification will allow farmers to utilise to the full farm assets such as buildings, under-utilised machinery, and unworked or unproductive land. Most important of all, it will enhance overall employment prospects in rural comunities. It is essential that additional training is available to encourage such moves.
The other principal provisions of the Bill will allow those who are not employed in agriculture to take advantage of the highly regarded training expertise to which the hon. Member for Ryedale referred. There are a couple of such courses in her part of the world. We all have training expertise in our constituencies, and we are glad of it. Farmers' wives, on a voluntary basis, sustain some of this work of the ATB. In the terms of the Bill, they are amenity skills.
When the board came into existence 21 years ago, its birth coincided with the establishment of a number of other training boards that are associated with various industries. The feeling at the time was that duplication of the work done by various boards should be avoided at all costs. As a result, the scope of the ATB was tied down in considerable legislative detail. My hon. Friend's Bill seeks to remove such constrictions and to allow the board to adopt a more commercial approach in seeking a greater share of its income from those who are willing to purchase its services instead of relying to a substantial extent on grant aid. Although many other industrial training boards are no longer in existence, there is naturally still a desire to avoid unnecessary duplication, and we shall have to try to ensure that there is no duplication between the industrial training board and other bodies such as ADAS. It would be ridiculous if Government bodies were to compete for the same job. Therefore, the Bill contains a necessary safeguard.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North and commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — AIDS (Control) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

PERIODICAL REPORTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO AIDS AND HIV

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, after 'other', insert 'relevant'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(5A) The Schedule to this Act may be modified or amended under subsection (5) above by altering or deleting any of the matters for the time being specified in it or by specifying additional relevant information.'.
No. 6, in line 16, leave out 'and'.
No. 7, line 17, at end insert
'and "relevant information" means information relating to, or to any matter connected with, AIDS or HIV.'.
No. 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) In this Act "AIDS" means "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" and "HIV" means "Human Immunodeficiency Virus.".
No. 10, in, Title, line 2, at end insert 'and Human Immunodeficiency Virus.'.

Mr. Strang: Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 are technical. The Secretary of State is empowered by the Act to give directions and make orders changing the information that is to be contained in the reports. The amendments ensure that only relevant information can be required, "relevant" being defined as
relating to, or to any matter connected with, AIDS or HIV.
10 am
It has been suggested that amendment No. 5 could be used radically to alter the nature of future legislation. That is not so. I am grateful to the British Medical Association for its advice in this context. I shall quote from what I believe to be a helpful letter that is based on the advice of the BMA's legal department and signed by its parliamentary officer, Sue Marks. She points out that the Secretary of State can introduce regulations to make AIDS a notifiable disease. The Secretary of State already has these powers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which is a consolidation Act that brings together various earlier enactments.
I understand that the Government's position remains, as it has always been, that they have no intention of making it a notifiable disease. The letter says:
The regulations were introduced in 1985 which made provision for certain sections of the 1984 Act to apply to AIDS— for example, removal to hospital, attention in hospital, compulsory medical examination, isolation of the body, etc. Further regulations could therefore at any time apply under various sections of the 1984 Act to AIDS.
Amendment No. 8 moves the definition of AIDS and HIV from paragraph 9 of the schedule to a new subsection in clause 4. We have deliberately not included in the Bill a scientific definition of HIV or AIDS. Scientists are still learning about the nature of the virus and about the condition described as AIDS. Any current definition could be outdated by further research. We refer to HIV and AIDS as they are understood at present.
Amendment No. 10 makes it explicit that the Bill covers the human immunodeficiency virus, of which AIDS is but one manifestation. This is an important scientific point. Hon. Members know that the main effect of HIV on the health of an individual is that it attacks the immune system, with the result that after a period of years the individual dies from a disease such as pneumonia. HIV can also cause a form of cancer— again, it is believed, through the immune system. The virus also causes dementia. It is believed that that is not caused by an attack on the immune system, but that there is a direct attack by the virus on the central nervous system. Therefore, the Bill does not cover just AIDS. It recognises that HIV infection can cause conditions other than AIDS.
The amendments improve the Bill significantly, and I commend them to the House.

Sir George Young: I have read the Standing Committee proceedings, which seem to have been very good natured and to have led to a great deal of all-party agreement. However, amendment No. 5 says:
The Schedule to this Act may be modified or amended under subsection (5) above by altering or deleting any of the matters for the time being specified in it or by specifying additional relevant information.
Following an article in today's edition of The Times, there seems to be a need to stress the difference between the incidence of HIV and AIDS. In his important article, Mr. Paul Vallely says:
among the soldiers
these are the soldiers of the Zambian army—
the rate is virtually 100 per cent.
He is referring to the incidence of HIV. Then he says:
Interestingly, however, fewer seem actually to die from the disease here than we would expect. Perhaps the strain is slightly different. Perhaps the local population have had it for years and have developed partial immunity.
If information is to be published, as the schedule requires, it is crucially important to make the distinction between the incidence of HIV and AIDS casualties. A number of Opposition Members made this point during the Standing Committee proceedings. In the light of that article, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to draw a distinction between the two sets of statistics, because the public assume that they are the same. However, the work in Zambia makes it clear that there may be an important difference.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendments. However, subject to the safeguards that are included in the Bill, amendment No. 5 provides for a wide variety of options that enable the Miniser to amend the schedule. There is concern about, giving a potentially open-ended power to Ministers, particularly in relation to confidential information. Medical information is a good example of that.
What developments does the Minister think might lead him to avail himself of these open-ended powers? The phrase "additional relevant information" is included, and we understand what that means, but what additional relevant information would lead the Minister to introduce a statutory instrument? The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) dealt with the incidence of the disease and its effects. We need to hold a balance between informing the public and not creating undue alarm or undue publicity, or breaches of confidentiality concerning pople who are either AIDS carriers or AIDS victims.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): May I explain to the House the purpose of this group of amendments. They have the unusual, and in this case meritorious, characteristic of being amendments that stand in the names of both an Opposition Back Bencher and a Government Minister. That is a happy sign of all-party unanimity. [Interruption.] I hear a slight murmuring behind me from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). I realise that all-party unanimity may not extend to all Members of all parties. I suspect that that applies to my hon. Friend.
Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 are technical. They flow from the amendment of the long title to include HIV. That almost immediately picks up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). Their objective is to ensure that the Secretary of State can give directions and make orders to amend the schedule to require health authorities and boards to provide information, not just about full-blown AIDS, but about HIV and HIV-related conditions.
Amendment No. 8 moves the definition of AIDS and HIV from the previous paragraph 9 of the schedule to a new subsection of clause 4. The reason for this is that in the previous version of the Bill AIDS and HIV were mentioned only in the schedule, and that is the correct place for this definition. AIDS and HIV are now referred to in clause 1(8) and it is therefore necessary to provide a definition in the body of the Bill.
Amendment No. 10 links the purpose of several of these amendments, amends the long title of the Bill and makes explicit that the scope of the Bill covers human immunodeficiency virus, of which AIDS is only one manefestation. This is directly relevant to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.
Although the short title of the Bill is the AIDS (Control) Bill, it was always intended to cover not only full-blown clinical AIDS but other conditions that result from infection from the human immunodeficiency virus. HIV is the causative factor, and not everyone who becomes infected with it is known to develop full-blown AIDS. The provisions of the Bill clearly cover HIV as well as AIDS, and this change to the long title is designed to make the scope of the Bill absolutely plain.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: My hon. Friend might consider at a later stage changing the title further in another place. As he knows, I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but it is not really an AIDS control Bill. It is an AIDS information Bill.

Mr. Newton: I do not want to engage in semantic quibbling with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). The underlying purpose of the Bill is to assist in the control of the spread of clinical AIDS and of the virus which causes it, by requiring reports from health authorities and by publishing information about what health authorities are doing. While I accept that the superficial purpose of the Bill is simply to bring about the publication of reports on various items, its underlying purpose is to assist in the control of the spread of this terrible disease. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the title reflects that underlying purpose.
I was asked about amendment No. 5 and also about one or two rather broader issues. I shall start by replying to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton. I hope he will feel that I have already

answered them in a sense. In public discussion of this matter there is still a certain amount of confusion, if only because AIDS is such an easy acronym to use in newspaper headlines and in the ordinary course of public discussion.
It is basic to public understanding of what is happening to say that even now relatively few people have died from AIDS or have full-blown clinical AIDS. The number of such people known to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre is between 700 and 800. This is a very small part of the problem, in the sense that although we have no firm knowledge of how many people in Britain are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, our best estimates are about 30,000 to 40,000. We have acknowledged that the figure could be lower or higher than that, and some people have said that the figure is higher.
The number of people with HIV is considerably higher than those who have AIDS. There are many uncertainties, including information about the number of those now infected with the virus—which certainly runs into tens of thousands— who will develop full-blown clinical AIDS, thereby adding to the number of between 700 and 800 who are currently known to have or to have had full-blown AIDS. The estimate given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is the best available to us at the moment and shows that the number of AIDS cases will rise to about 4,000 by the end of 1989. However, that prediction is subject to some degree of uncertainty. I accept the distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton draws between AIDS cases and those infected with the virus. Part of the purpose of the amendments is to make that clearer in the Bill and, therefore, in the reports that flow from the Bill.

Sir George Young: Will the statistics published under this part of the Bill show whether partial immunity to AIDS is being developed? By looking at the percentage of notifiable HIV cases that have turned into AIDS, will they show whether the human body is capable of producing its own immunity to the strain?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the statistics required by the Bill will in themselves show that. The general exercise of seeking to improve our statistical knowledge of AIDS will assist in improving our clinical knowledge of AIDS and the virus. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, this virus has been known in Britain for significantly less than 10 years. It is only three or four years since the organism was identified, and although our knowledge about it is probably greater already than at this stage of any other disease in history, because our knowledge has grown rapidly, in a sense we are still at a relatively early stage in learning about this organism and its effect on people.

Dr. John Marek: There is an important point here, because statistical knowledge helps clinical knowledge. We shall come to that later in the schedule. There have been certain changes in blood tests, which I can understand, but the important question is how statistically significant the results will be as a consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Newton: Clearly, any additional information about the pattern in people who are infected and the extent to which they do or do not progress to full-blown clinical AIDS will assist our clinical and our epidemiological


knowledge about the course of this virus. I must be frank and say that it is unlikely that the information that will be published in the form and shape required by the Bill relating to areas of district health authorities will be as significant in adding to that knowledge as the information collated nationally through the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.
One of the problems that we shall come to when discussing one of the later amendments about the publication of information about those infected with HIV, as distinct from those with full-blown clinical AIDS, is that of knowing whether the information available to a district health authority relates to the people in its area or to people from other areas. There is little doubt that in this case, as with other sexually transmitted diseases, many people prefer not to go either for assessment or for treatment to places in their own areas but to go to places, where, to put it bluntly, they think that they will not be known.
There is little doubt that that is one of the explanations for the fact that the overwhelming majority of clinical AIDS cases at the moment are in only three out of the 14 health regions in England. They are almost all in the North-West, North East and South East Thames regions. The largest numbers are in the North East and North West Thames regional health authority areas. In the Thames regions the problem is heavily concentrated in a number of well-known inner London hospitals. No doubt that partly reflects people's preference for being treated in more anonymous circumstances than would be possible if they were the only cases in a local district hospital.
Information collected and published on a district basis in the way that we are suggesting is unlikely to add as significantly to our broad knowledge, in the way that some hon. Members have suggested, as the information that is collected and analysed through the Colindale Communcable Disease Surveillance Centre. Much of the local information may, in the end, have to be drawn from that.
I hope that that goes some way towards satisfying the proper thirst for knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton. I hope also to have satisfied the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), whose other point will be dealt with when we come to a later amendment.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the purpose of amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 9 leaves out paragraph 3 of the original schedule, and if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) had not already done so, I should have explained to the House that that paragraph in the schedule, as it emerged from Committee, was designed to impose a requirement to publish certain information about the number of people in an area who were thought to be suffering from HIV, but it has proved to be defective. We therefore propose to leave it out at this stage, on the basis of a firm undertaking that we wish to have in the schedule a requirement to publish the best available information about HIV sufferers.
Bluntly, frankly and without any sense of shame, I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that what has happened to the proposed requirements to publish information on HIV-positives is that we were not able to draft what we regard as an adequate provision in

time to put it in the schedule. That explains our reasons for having the powers in amendment No. 5— about which the hon. Gentleman was concerned— which enable us to add to or amend the schedule. There is nothing sinister in that. The problem has been the speed with which we have worked on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have been cooperating actively with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East since Second Rading, which was not long ago, and through the Committee stage, and we have not been able to solve all the problems involved in determining exactly what information we can sensibly require to be published.
Our reason for amending the schedule is to cope, in the short term, with the difficulty relating to HIV-positives and, in the long term, to make sure that we are not, by the rapid passage of primary legislation locked into something which, in the end, will turn out to be nonsensical in practice. We want room to manoeuvre by means of secondary legislation, rather than have to return to all the paraphernalia of passing another Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation, and I accept his good faith. He will understand that the only concern of people outside the system is that the Minister will have power to ask for information about an individual or his condition. It would be helpful for the record to hear the Minister deny that, to complement what he has said about the reason for needing the power to keep up with the process of the disease.

Mr. Newton: I can readily give that assurance. I would need to take advice before giving a categorical assurance that the provision could not conceivably be used to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I doubt whether the Bill could legally be used in that way, but I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that the Government would not use the powers to obtain information about an individual. Indeed, one of our main concerns has been to ensure that the Bill and the reports from district health authorities and the health boards of Scotland cannot conceivably risk breaking confidentiality. That has been the subject of extended discussion between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and me. We were determined not to have a Bill that created the risk of breaching an individual's confidentiality, or which could be perceived by an individual as creating such a risk. I can give the hon. Gentleman the basic assurance that he wants.
I now come to another, not dissimilar, issue—that of notifiability. Although compulsory notifiability is a separate issue from those contained in the Bill, I understand that it has been raised by Opposition Members, so I shall comment on it. The House is well aware that the Government's position is that there is no merit or benefit in making AIDS a notifiable disease at present, and we have no plans to do so. A system of voluntary reporting of cases on a confidential basis to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and its equivalent unit in Scotland has been in operation since 1982. A statutory system might produce less accurate reporting, because patients are reluctant to come forward for testing and doctors are reluctant to give a firm diagnosis because of their fears, justified or otherwise, of loss of confidentiality.
The risks are obvious. The historical argument against making sexually transmitted diseases notifiable is that


such action drives them underground. I understand that no sexually transmitted disease is notifiable in the United Kingdom, for that reason. The other problem with AIDS is the long time lag between exposure to the virus and the development of the symptoms. It would therefore be extremely difficult, or indeed impossible, to trace former contacts, which is one of the usual reasons for making a disease notifiable.
Contacts are traced and can then be helped, but that would be impossible in many cases in which people with active sex lives may have picked up the virus as long ago as five, six or seven years. Therefore, one of the practical arguments for the compulsory notification does not exist in this case.
In any case, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the Government already have clear-cut powers to make diseases notifiable if they wish to do so. I have said that that is not our intention with AIDS, and I can give the House a categorical assurance that the powers in the Bill will not be used to bring that about. If it is thought in the future that it would be a good idea to make AIDS notifiable, the powers to do so already exist in a different form.
I hope that I have relieved the anxieties that have been expressed in the debate about these innocuous amendments. I also hope that I have been of assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, and that I have cleared up any lingering doubts or worries in the minds of Opposition Members.

Mr. Strang: I agree with the Minister for Health about the points which he covered and I am grateful for the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) raised a point that related purely to the statistical information required. My information is that other clauses will have a bigger impact in controlling the disease. Nevertheless, the statistical data will be important, partly for the reason at which the Minister hinted. We shall eventually use the data from the Public Health Laboratory Service and from the Communicable Disease Surviellance Centre. It is important to recognise that, once the statistics are properly published annually— unfortunately, this problem will be with us until the end of the century—we shall have a valuable measurement in the health board areas of Scotland and in the district health authority areas in England and Wales.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the question is: are the statistics significant? If we are to collect them, we should ensure that we attach as much significance to them as possible, subject to all the constraints mentioned by the Minister. That is an important point, although I agree with my hon. Friend that other provisions in the Bill are more important.

Mr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no problem with the AIDS statistics. I think that my hon. Friend is referring particularly to the HIV statistics. It is important that the footnotes in the documentation should make absolutely clear the testing circumstances of the results. I do not doubt that we shall be able to produce a new paragraph in the schedule which will ensure that the data published on HIV infection on a regional and district basis are scientifically valuable.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has taken an interest in the Bill and supports it. The Bill is about controlling AIDS. As hon. Members said on Second Reading, there is no doubt that, when the legislation is enacted, it will contribute significantly over the years to restricting the rate of spread of HIV, thus saving lives. Although I understand the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge, I urge him not to press his point about changing the Bill's title to the extent of perhaps threatening the prospects of enactment within the next couple of months. All the hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading were anxious that the Bill should be enacted promptly. I believe that the Minister and I have responded positively to the views expressed then.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 18, after 'Authority', insert 'District Health Authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 19, after 'Board', insert
'by which they are made and'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'State' to end of line 23.

Mr. Strang: The amendments are a tidy way of placing a clear duty to publish on each authority in England and Wales and each board in Scotland producing a report and to require them to collect and collate such reports. The words referring to Wales have been left in the Bill because, strictly speaking, Wales does not have a regional health authority, so there would not be a body responsible for collating the reports.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to seek a little truth from the Minister or from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on amendment No. 4. I understand that the purpose is to ensure that reports are published. I am happy to support that end. Should one infer that, if the public want those reports, they will be able to obtain them? Obviously Members of Parliament receive the reports, but they may not be available to the public. We are deleting the words that expressly relate to that. I hope that that does not mean that the public will not be able to obtain the reports, whatever the reasonable demand is.

Mr. Newton: The amendments deal with the fact that under the previous drafting of the Bill the only requirement was to make reports available. There was the curious anomaly that the Bill, whose primary purpose was to bring about the publication of reports, contained no requirement that they should be published, but required only that they should be made available. I think, subject to any advice that my lawyers might care to give me, that "publishing" subsumes "making available". I assure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our intention in this, as in all senses, is entirely honourable.
The effect of the amendments is to provide that all the reports will be published, including those made by district health authorities. The note which the Department has kindly provided says that in Committee I said that we accepted the need to amend this clause to provide for the publication of district reports rather than merely make


them available. We are obviously sure that this is the right course, and that is what the amendment does. The hon. Gentleman need not, therefore, worry.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 1, line 19 after 'Board', insert—
'by which they are made and'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'State' to end of line 23.

No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(5A) The Schedule to this Act may be modified or amended under subsection (5) above by altering or deleting any of the matters for the time being specified in it or by specifying additional relevant information.'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'and'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 17, at end insert—
'and "relevant information" means information relating to, or to any matter connected with, AIDS or HIV.'.— [Mr. Strang.]

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 2, line 29, at end insert—
'(A) In this Act "AIDS" means Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" and "HIV" means "Human Immunodeficiency Virus.".'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Schedule

CONTENTS OF REPORTS

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, leave out lines 3 to 31 and insert—
'1. The number of persons known to the Authority or Board to be persons with AIDS at the end of the period to which the report relates ("the reporting period") having been diagnosed as such—

(a) in that period; and
(b) up to the end of that period,
by facilities or services provided by the Authority or Board.


2. The number of persons known to the Authority or Board to have been diagnosed as persons with AIDS by such facilities or services in the reporting period or a previous reporting period and to have died—

(a) in the reporting period; and
(b) up to the end of the reporting period.

3. Where the number to be reported under any of the foregoing provisions is between one and nine (inclusive) the report shall state only that the number is less than ten.
4. Particulars of the facilities and services provided by the Authority or Board, or known to it to have been provided in its district or area by others, in the reporting period for testing for, and preventing the spread of, AIDS and HIV and for treating, counselling and caring for persons with AIDS or infected with HIV.
5. The number of persons employed by the Authority or Board wholly or mainly in providing in the reporting period such facilities and services as are mentioned in paragraph 4 above.
6. An estimate of the facilities and services which the Authority or Board will provide in the twelve months following the reporting period for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 4 above.
7. Particulars of action taken by the Authority or Board, or known to it to have been taken in its district or area by others, in the reporting period to educate the public in relation to AIDS and HIV and to provide training for testing for AIDS and HIV and for the treatment, counselling and care of persons with AIDS or infected with HIV.'.

This is an important amendment because, in effect, it replaces the schedule to the Bill as amended in Committee. I stress that the work done by the Department of Health and Social Security, my research assistant and others has improved the schedule. There can be no doubt that the Bill is much better as a consequence of all the effort put into the changes in the schedule.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new schedule relate to the compilation of AIDS statistics for the reporting period and for the cumulative period. A new provision is introduced whereby a report should state the cumulative total of people with AIDS and the number in the reporting period. Paragraph 2 introduces a new provision in that, in addition to the number referred to in paragraph 1, each report should state the cumulative total of people with AIDS who have died by the end of the reporting period and the number of people with AIDS who have died in the reporting period. Clearly it is important for planning purposes to know precisely how many of the people with AIDS are still alive.
Paragraph 3 in the present schedule is to be deleted and new paragraph 3 repeats the provision in old paragraph 4. It provides that, where the number of cases with AIDS is between one and nine, to preserve confidentiality the report should say that the number is below 10. I am happy to endorse the Minister's remarks on Second Reading about the Government's anxiety that there should be no risk to confidentiality. There was a potential risk. We suggested the possibility of banding from nought to 10 and from 10 to 20, but concluded jointly that the best approach was the one in amendment No. 9, by which the number, when it is less than 10, is simply not reported.
The effect of paragraph 4 is to clarify the requirements which were previously contained in paragraph 6 that authorities and boards should report on facilities and services in their area for, inter alia, the testing, treatment, counselling and care for people who have AIDS or are infected with HIV. The amendment clearly differentiates between what is provided by the authority or board and what it knows other bodies have provided locally. It is important to recognise that this is a crucial requirement in the Bill. It will be relatively easy for the AIDS co-ordinator—if that is the person who will have responsibility for this in the district health authority or health board—to report on the work of the health authority or board.
Naturally, we want a comprehensive report—this is what is distinctive about this legislation—which covers the work that has been done by public authorities, local authorities, boards and voluntary organisations. The new paragraph acknowledges that there is a limit to the statutory requirement; we cannot put on a body a statutory requirement which it may not be able to fulfil. The amendment enables us to achieve more effectively what has always been our objective. That will clearly be understood by the district health authorities and officials who will be responsible for producing the reports.
New paragraph 7 amends the wording of former paragraph 8 to draw a clear distinction between action that is taken by a board or authority in regard to education and training as to AIDS and HIV and action that it knows has been taken by other boards locally.
Paragraph 5 clarifies the requirement in previous paragraph 7 to state the number of people who are employed by a health authority or board to work on AIDS or HIV by specifying that the report should cover only


those working wholly or largely in these areas. Hon. Members will understand that this is a common-sense amendment to the paragrph.
Paragraph 6 replaces previous paragraph 5. New paragraph 4 sets out the facilities and services that authorities and boards have provided in the reporting period for tackling the spread of AIDS and HIV. This new paragraph requires them to make an assessment of the facilities and services that they intend to provide in the next year. Again, hon. Members will understand that this change is desirable. It was felt that the original required estimate of services for people with AIDS was too wide. For example, we may find an authority stating that it required three new hospitals and using the report for political propaganda purposes rather than making a realistic assessment of what could reasonably be expected to be provided in the coming year. It is better for an authority to state what it proposes to do. There is nothing to stop it adding what it can or would like to do. the provision is widened to include not just AIDS but HIV and its manifestations.
Paragraph 7 replaces paragraph 8 with alterations along the same lines as new paragraph 4. It refers to training for professionals in sectors ranging from testing and counselling to education.
10.45 am
I should like to say something about the reasons for deleting the paragraph relating to HIV. Earlier in the debate the Minister stated that we have put a lot of thought into this because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has acknowledged, it is important that the requirement in relation to the statistics on HIV produces data which are useful and give some indication of the rate of spread of the infection nationally and regionally, but perhaps more crucially at district level and, in Scotland, at halth board level. At that level we must monitor the rate of spread of the disease. The AIDS cases are the manifestation of that and we know that that manifestation can take five years or more to appear.
It is not the AIDS cases which are important in relation to the epidemiology of the disease; it is our best estimates of the number of HIV carriers. That is why the Minister was right to stress our determination to ensure that, whatever arrangements are agreed and whatever new paragraph is inserted, under the procedure in which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed an interest, they are of value to the Department, Ministers and the community generally in monitoring the rate of spread of the virus and in evaluating over the years— on the basis of that rate of spread nationally and locally— how effective the measures of the Government and the community are in relation to reducing the rate of spread of the virus.
The Minister and I have been pursuing that question in recent weeks and I shall quote the letter that he kindly sent me on 19 March, because it helps to put on record for the benefit of the House not only my interest but the commitment of the Government in this matter. The Minister explained why he felt that we had to withdraw the paragraph in the amended Bill and why he could not at this stage go ahead with a replacement for it. He said:
Our main concern rests with the operation in practice of paragraph 3 of the Schedule. We understand that the intention is to make authorities aware of the number of those people in their districts who have been identified as infected with HIV, and to give some idea of the total volume of blood

tests that have been undertaken. We support those aims fully and would like to see an amendment to the schedule that leads to this information being obtained.
He went on to explain that the Government intend—we hope to achieve this—to secure the amendment in time for the first reports, which will be published in 1988. I hope that it will be possible for the first reporting period to end on 31 March 1988, which is the first reporting year.
I hope that we have reassured the House as to why there is no paragraph in the new schedule on the question of the incidence of HIV and how we shall achieve useful statistics and estimates of HIV infection in different areas. I believe that the House will regard the new schedule as a substantial improvement on the one in the amended Bill.

Sir George Young: Paragraph 2 of the schedule requires reports on
The number of persons known to the Authority or Board to have been diagnosed … and to have died".
On what information will such reports be compiled? Some doctors may not put AIDS as the cause of death. For example, if a publicly respected figure living in a small village dies of AIDS, his GP may not wish to state that fact on the death certificate. Bearing in mind the way in which AIDS is most commonly contracted, the doctor may seek to save the sensitivities of the family and friends by putting another disease on the death certificate. The dead mart may be known to the authority or Board to have been art AIDS sufferer, but will that death be included in the statistics?
I recall the recent death of Liberace. Up to the moment of his death, his relatives, advisers and friends insisted that he did not have AIDS. I stand to be corrected, but I think that the coroner put AIDS on the death certificate and some litigation resulted.
I understand that AIDS involves, as its name implies, an immune deficiency and reduces the body's capacity to resist other diseases. Those who suffer from AIDS may die of something else. Will the other disease appear on the death certificate? If we are to publish information about. deaths, we are entitled to know how the raw data are compiled and how we can overcome the social problems when the correct cause of death is not recorded on a death certificate.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it would not be lost on anyone examining the statistics that if there were a significant increase in, for example, Kaposi's Sarcoma or in the number of deaths from bronchial pneumonia or other related diseases, we should be dealing not with a relatively simple infection but with something much more sinister. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need some way to show clearly and concisely what is happening.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a qualified doctor, he has covered the issue in a much more professional way than I could. There are other ways of registering the deaths of AIDS sufferers than merely writing AIDS on the death certificate. Perhaps we can detect the incidence of AIDS by looking at the causes of other deaths, but, under the proposed new schedule, they would not appear as deaths from AIDS.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is present, because he has ministerial responsibility for coroners, who are in charge of death certificates. Perhaps they will have


to ensure that the Home Office complies with the spirit of the Bill if it gives guidance on how death certificates should be completed when someone dies of AIDS.
The schedule requires certain information to be provided:
The number of persons employed … wholly or mainly in providing . . . such facilities and services … An estimate of the facilities and services which the Authority or Board will provide".
However, no estimate is required of the costs involved. Is that because this is a private Member's Bill and, therefore, it is not in order to mention money, or is there another reason? I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made substantial resources available through the National Health Service to meet the growing problem of AIDS. It seemed to me that it would be appropriate for the Government to show how the money was being spent. Will my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) explain why costs incurred by the authority or board are not included in the schedule?

Dr. M. S. Miller: I apologise for the fact that, due to circumstances beyond my control, I arrived after the debate had started.
We are dealing with a tremendously serious outbreak which is worse than anything that we have known in our lifetime and is perhaps worse than anything that has ever been known; even the black death might not be comparable.
The outbreak has taken us unawares. I do not blame anyone for that, but we certainly have to monitor the situation much more closely and regularly than we should have to monitor an outbreak of smallpox or diphtheria.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what action he intends to take to ensure that information is kept up to date—not on an annual basis, but over much shorter periods. Those who will be deeply involved in the treatment of patients, whether it be palliative treatment or any other sort, and those responsible for providing the necessary funds— the cost will balloon enormously—must be able to call on up-to-date information.
I do not know whether such a provision needs to be put into the Bill. Certainly, no responsible Government could neglect the need for up-to-date information and I hope that the Minister will assure us that those who are involved in treating AIDS and in providing funds will have information about what has been happening in the previous month or so.

Mr. Eric Forth: It is always difficult to interrupt a comfortable unanimity on any subject, however important it may be, but occasionally it falls to an hon. Member to fulfil that role.
Some people in politics, perhaps the more cynical, say that if something has unanimous support there must be something wrong with it. I am not sure that I subscribe wholly to that view, but I have occasionally shared it.
My fears are made specific by the proposed new schedule. We are dealing with the fine balanace that must be struck between the provision of information, which may be essential to the end that everyone wants to achieve, and the possible spreading of alarm. I fear that there is a danger that we may come closer than we should like to spreading alarm.
A report will have to be prepared on the number of AIDS sufferers in a health authority area. My hon. Friend

the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) mentioned the problem that could be caused in small communities. Even if an authority avoided the possibility of individuals being identified and merely said that there were fewer than 10 AIDS sufferers in its area, attempts might be made to identify them and alarm might be caused unnecessarily.
11 am
Some thought must be given to whether we are striking the correct balance between the provision of information for the most laudable purposes and the possible causing of alarm in small communities where none existed before.
I should like to know how far my hon. Friend thinks it will be possible to identify accurately and meaningfully the facilities and services which are allocated to the purpose contained in the Bill. Will they not overlap considerably with other purposes and facilities already in existence? I have some doubts about the meaningfulness of the amendment, particularly paragraph 5, which refers to
The number of persons employed by the Authority or Board".
I should have thought that the facilities would be shared to a large extent, or that action would be taken as far as possible within existing resources. I hope that we are not attempting to impart a spurious accuracy to something that will be very difficult to identify.
I am, however, much more concerned about paragraph 6, which has been touched on already. I am worried about it, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is as well. I fear that we are about to go down a rather dangerous road. If we require
An estimate of the facilities and services which the Authority or Board will provide",
we shall open up the distinct possibility— as was admitted during the moving of the amendment—of pressure being put on the Government of the day, regardless of party. In an effort to extract more resources from the system, individual boards and authorities may exaggerate the problem, or perhaps say only what they believe is essential to provide the facilities required under the Bill. How will the Government respond to such pressure? If we applied the principle right across the National Health Service, I suspect that any Government would find themselves in the uncomfortable, if not intolerable, position of being told by each board, region and authority, "This is essential: the statute requires it."
We are discussing AIDS now, but such a development could spread to other cases in which a condition requires treatment, or information needs to be provided. The Government of the day would be forced to say whether they could make such provision or, if they could not, why they could not. I am worried that the paragraph could create a precedent and how we will respond.
That leads me to a wider point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton. We see no mention of the costs of the exercise. We know that the facilities are being generously provided already, but we cannot measure the commitment that we are being asked to make. The principle is important. Many people have expressed concern, which I should like to voice today, that we may be committing potentially enormous resources to a largely—although not entirely— self-inflicted condition. It is difficult to square that with the lack of similar provision and concentration of resources on behalf of those who suffer from conditions that they have not brought upon themselves.
My hon. Friend knows that I am at issue with him on the subject of needles. I acknowledge that we have at last given needles to diabetics, but that was done only because of AIDS. How can we justify the Bill which, with the best possible motives, devotes considerable resources—we do know how much— to AIDS, to disabled and handicapped people who may be suffering from, say, kidney disease, which is not self-inflicted but is the result of a natural catastrophe? They have a very good claim to more resources, but there is no such Bill for them, to my knowledge. There is a good deal of unease in the community, and I, too, am uneasy about the degree to which we are concentrating on AIDS in the amendment.
Paragraph 7 refers to
the reporting period to educate the public".
Here again, there is a difficulty. The term "education" always carries the best possible connotations. It sounds good; everyone approves of education. In the present context, however, the meaning of the word is not beyond controversy. The excellent efforts of the Government to education the public, as they see it, have made many people feel anxious that what to one man is education may spread alarm, panic and unnecessary concern to others.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite wide of the amendment; his speech would have been more appropriate on Second Reading. The amendment deals with reporting, not with the merits or otherwise of what is to be reported.

Mr. Forth: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was in order to explore the meaning of the word "educate" in paragraph 7. However, as always, I shall be guided by you. I hope that I have put my point across.
Although I well understand the concern that has given rise to the Bill, and although I appreciate the unanimity referred to earlier by my hon. Friend, I have considerable reservations about it. I am worried about what may lie behind the schedule, about what it requires in terms of cost and about the wider implications for National Health Service resourcing. It may be felt desirable in the future—perhaps, indeed, by me—to use the Bill as a precedent when dealing with other conditions that are not, as this is, largely self-inflicted.
We shall not be voting on the amendment today, but, if we were, I should abstain or even vote against it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me.

Dr. Marek: I shall be brief. I think that there is general unanimity in the House, although not on every aspect of the problem, but, I was very sorry to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). The hon. Gentleman was arguing for ignorance. He said that enormous resources could be spent on AIDS. Despite the general unanimity, that is one of the points at issue: the Opposition feel that the Government should be putting more emphasis on the problem, and committing more resources to it. At present, those resources are not enormous.
I was also sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that resources were being committed to a condition that people had brought upon themselves. That is a shameful statement. The hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself, but, in his ignorance, he probably will not be, which makes me even sadder.

Mr. Forth: But is it true?

Dr. Marek: Of course it is not true. The number of HIV cases in this country has been estimated at 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, but I fear that the eventual figure will be considerably higher. All the estimates made so far have been at the bottom of the band. I do not wish to spread alarm, and I do not think that I am doing so, but I feel that the public should know the facts, rather than be kept in ignorance, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire recommends.
It is the Government's duty to inform the public, unless they have extremely good reasons not to do so— perhaps relating to national security, but that does not arise here. The public are not idiots. If they are aware of the facts, they can consider them and take appropriate action. Leaving the public in ignorance will not help. That is why the Opposition fully support the Bill.

Dr. M. S. Miller: AIDS has been visited upon us relatively recently, so, even with scientific knowledge, no one should jump to conclusions about how it is spread. Many aspects of the disease are still in their infancy. We might discover a different pattern in the coming months or years. It is wrong to jump to conclusions about how it is spread or to say that it is self-imposed.
It took a long time to discover that lung cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes. For many years we did not think that there was any relationship between the two. It might be some time before we know the implications of how this disease is spread.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes the point better than I do. Only by knowledge shall we find out how the disease is spread, how it is caused and what can be done to cure it.
I shall say nothing more about the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, because his words speak for themselves. The disease exists in the heterosexual community. It is not something that people have brought upon themselves, as the hon. Gentleman said. It concerns all of us. I am sure that the hon. Member will find no support for his words anywhere in the House.
I do not think that there will be any identification problems if the Bill is passed. As the Minister said, hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about that possibility. We do not want individuals to be identified.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) intends to continue to consider how the statistics for AIDS and HIV should be collected. Eventually I am sure that we shall come up with a solution.
I am happy to support the amendment in the hope that perhaps in another place certain matters might be put right.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and the Minister for trying to achieve the best criteria for reporting. In Committee I moved an amendment dealing with the breakdown figures. I accept the need for the figures not to be broken down according to district or region because of identification problems.
I hope that when the Minister does his national compilations he will break down the figures by age. That will be particularly useful because it might show whether the campaign is getting through better in some places than in others. It is important to know nationally the incidence


of people who have contracted the virus and the disease. That will enable the Government to direct their campaign more efficiently and to provide more widespread information about what we all need to do to try to reverse the spread of the disease.

Mr. Rhodes James: I am worried about paragraph 3 of the schedule. I understand the confidentiality problem, about which we are all concerned, but the value of the data that will result from the Bill will be diminished if a report might state
only that the number is less than ten.
Statistically there is an enormous difference between five, three and nine. The value of the schedule might be compromised by that paragraph. That is not a criticism of the schedule as a whole, because it is a great improvement on the original, but it could nullify the total value of the exercise and the statistics.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I apologise for being out of the Chamber, but I went to get the latest AIDS figures, published by the DHSS, which obviously are important to the schedule.
Confidentiality has been mentioned. The region of the reporting doctor might not be the same as that of the patient. That would certainly ensure confidentiality. A patient might receive treatment in a region other than that from which he was first reported or he might he known to a region which has not yet reported.
I am a little worried that certain areas will be known as AIDS-free areas and others as AIDS-covered areas. For instance, the North-West Thames area has the largest number of AIDS carriers at 363, yet East Anglia has only five. I am certain that it is necessary for district health authorities to report, according to the schedule, where the AIDS carriers live and where the deaths occur.
We are talking about 731 United Kingdom AIDS cases and 373 deaths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said, according to DHSS figures a large number of AIDS cases involve either homosexuals or bisexuals. The total up to the end of February 1987 was 640, of whom 317 have died. I must make one point to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Worcestershire—28 cases were not homosexual but were haemophiliacs, of whom 22 have lost their lives.

Mr. Forth: I should like to clarify what I said, in view of the remarks by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I was very careful to say that the disease was largely self-inflicted. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will discover that I used that phrase several times. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) now makes clear the basis for my remarks. I acknowledge that some people do not come into that category, but the great bulk do. That is the difference that I was describing in relation to people with handicaps and diseases of other kinds in which they have played no part whatsoever.

Mr. Bruinvels: I have no doubt that that clarifies my hon. Friend's position.
In a written question yesterday I asked about the children of HIV mothers. I am not sure how figures for them can be incorporated, but I hope that they will be.
There have been seven cases so far, and four have died. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), I think that the death certificate in such cases should be clear. I am aware that such cases cause a scare in the neighbourhood and might perhaps undermine the respectability of the person concerned. Anyone— Liberace is a case in point—who dies of AIDS should have the sympathy of the whole House. Such people should be treated not as statistics but as human beings in desperate circumstances who need care and understanding in the last days of their lives.
I welcome the schedule. It is reported that three doctors currently have the AIDS virus. One is in gynaecology and the others are standard physicians. I am not sure how the public will be notified, but I hope that medical men or women who have the AIDS virus will not be allowed to continue in practice. If they did, it could be fatal. People go to hospital to get better. I hope that the Minister will look into that. I know that he is considering what to do about the two nurses who suffer from the AIDS disease. Under the schedule such cases will be recorded as carriers. Those who die from the disease will also be recorded. The Bill is a very caring Bill and it is desperately needed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on introducing it.

Mr. Newton: I propose to make my speech on this amendment by commenting, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), on the schedule paragraph by paragraph. I shall also comment on the points that arise from that process and pick up any other points that may be left over from the notes that I have made on hon. Members' speeches.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East accurately described the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new schedule even though, technically, it is amendment No. 9. Those paragraphs help to clarify the intention of the Bill concerning the figures that the reports should contain about the number of people with AIDS. They expand the previous provisions to specify how many of the total number of people with AIDS are living and how many have died. That will be a useful addition to the figures already produced on a national and regional basis by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the Scottish unit of that centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), with the professional endorsement of the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), raised the question of what the definition of death will be for this purpose, if I may put it that way, and how confident we are that all AIDS cases will be identified as such on death certificates. That is a problem not only with AIDS but with some other diseases and it is not something to which anybody has found a conclusive answer. In some cases there is the obvious risk that the cause of death may be misdiagnosed, but in other cases, for one reason or another— possibly in the interests of attempting to spare people's feelings—some unusual description or possibly circumlocution may be used to describe a cause of death that is thought to be especially unfortunate. There is little doubt that in some cases doctors may be using phrases like "immunodeficiency" to spare people's feelings. However, in such cases it is likely that they will be recognised as AIDS cases by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.
I acknowledge that there is a possible problem for which there is not an off-the-cuff conclusive answer. There


are also problems related to the statistics concerning such cases and we are constantly seeking to rectify and improve the position. On Monday of this week there was a significant, though small, specialised conference in London about predicting the course of the AIDS epidemic. Part of the purpose of the conference was to study precisely the way in which the statistical basis of our knowledge and thus our capacity to predict the spread of the disease, can be improved.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Perhaps the Minister will study the legal position and the definition of the term "syndrome." I cannot remember ever writing on a death certificate that someone had died from a syndrome; he died from some disease, condition or accident. Will the Minister consider whether it is legal to put down AIDS as the cause of death because it is not a disease but a syndrome? He should consider what the definition of the term "syndrome" would imply.

Mr. Newton: I undertake to examine what the hon. Gentleman has said with added vigour in view of his professional background. I accept that there is a difficulty. It has been implicit in remarks made in the House that the actual, immediate cause of death in many AIDS cases is pneumonia. In that case the issue arises as to whether the doctor puts on the death certificate pneumonia arising from or aggravated by the syndrome. I acknowledge that that must be considered. However, I am not in a position today to make further off-the-cuff remarks about that. It is frequently possible to follow up, in confidence, death certificates where the cause of death— for example, pneumonia— is a condition that could be related to AIDS.
If I may attempt to sum up in a sentence what I have been seeking to say, I acknowledge the possible problem that has been highlighted by a particular case in the United States, and I will undertake to consider the comments made today. As with everyone else, we are anxious to ensure, to the fullest possible extent, accurate reporting and accurate information about the prevalence and spread of the disease.
I wish to comment upon something that is not in the schedule, old paragraph 3, rather than paragraph 3 in the amendment. The original paragraph 3 required reports to specify the number of blood samples taken by facilities of the health authority or board for testing for HIV antibodies and the number of such samples which proved positive.
Old paragraph 3 attempted to find some sort of rough proxy of the number of people known to the health authority to be infected with HIV in tha authority's area. am sure that the House will not need reminding—if it did it would have been picked up earlier today— that this is a particularly difficult and complex matter. It is important to ensure that the information given in the reports is not misleading and that it is as complete as possible and that it ties in with the national information system already established by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the equivalent unit in Scotland. It is important that that information should not jeopardise and is not seen to jeopardise the confidentiality of individual patients.
When we reconsidered the wording of paragraph 3 of the schedule, as it was amended in Committee, against that background we were not persuaded that it adequately met

those four criteria. It does not bring information from the Public Health Laboratory Services, which carries out much of the testing, since those laboratories are independent of the health authorities. It does not distinguish well enough between the number of tests and the number of people being tested—some people may be tested more than once. We consulted our experts including the CDSC in an attempt to come up with an acceptable formulation in time for the Report stage, but, in view of the problems involved, we have not managed to do so. Rather than persevere with what is undoubtedly a defective provision in the Bill, we are proposing to delete it.
None of what I have said, which was emphasised in an extract from my letter which was quoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, detracts from the desirability that authorities' reports should contain information about the extent of HIV infection in the local areas. Clearly that information will be most important for planning purposes, and we shall be giving that matter further consideration in consultation with the C'DSC' together with the health authorities and boards. I repeat the assurance that was explicit in my letter to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that we intend to use our powers under the Bill to add the requirement that reports must provide information, to the extent that that information is available, about HIV infection. That will occur just as soon as we have devised a workable solution to the problem, and it will certainly be in time for the preparation of the first report.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride raised a query about the reporting period and said—in my judgment, he was correct— that more frequent, up-to-date information would be required for those who are directly engaged in the provision of services. I accept that, but it is a separate problem. The purpose of the reports is to provide a picture of the overall position and the expected provision of services in any given part of the country by a health authority in England over a period. That information will enable the public to make a judgment about what is going on and how the authorities are responding. In one sense, the clinicians and others concerned with the direct treatment of a clinical AIDS case will not need to have a lot of statistics available to them because they will have the people in their wards or t hose people will be provided with social services. They will know what it happening because they will be able to count the number of people they are treating.
11.30 am
Leaving aside that simplistic point, we are publishing monthly the information that is available to us through the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre about the number of AIDS cases and deaths in particular regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) used the press release giving the February figures, which was published earlier this month. We have also said that we shall publish on a quarterly basis the best analysis that we can make of the increase, for example, in the number of HIV positives who have been identified and the assessment that that enables us to make about the spread of the disease. There are too many uncertainties yet for that to be more than an assessment, using the latest available information, but there is nothing in the Bill that suggests that the only requirement for information is in a


report once a year from every health authority. There are several needs for information, which the Government are actively seeking to meet.
New paragraph 3 repeats the old paragraph 4 and provides that where the number of AIDS cases is between one and nine, to preserve confidentiality, the report would say that the number was below 10. I shall not say anything further about confidentiality at this stage. It has been accepted entirely on both sides of the House that confidentiality should be protected.
Again, I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. Should anyone doubt the potential risk in terms of particular districts, he has only to look at the figures to which my hon. Friend referred, which show that at present there are only two live AIDS cases in the whole of East Anglia—these are the figures notified at the end of last month to the CDSC. There are only two live AIDS cases in the whole of the Oxford region, only two in the whole of the south-west, only three in the whole of the west midlands, and none in Merseyside, although that is simply because all the known people in Merseyside have already died. Therefore, there must be a significant number of health authorities with only one case, if they have any at all. On a narrow district basis, that creates a real risk that confidentiality will be breached. I hope that that will be fully accepted in the House.
Paragraph 4 of the new schedule clarifies the requirement previously in paragraph 6 that authorities and boards should report on facilities and services in their area for, among other things, the testing, treatment, counselling and care of people with AIDS or infected with HIV, while paragraph 7, which was previously paragraph 8, similarly amends the earlier wording to draw a clear distinction between action taken by the authority or board in regard to education and training in respect of AIDS and HIV and action that it knows has been taken by other bodies locally.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the amendments are being introduced to clarify and expand what authorities are to include in their reports about local facilities and local action to tackle AIDS and HIV infection. They make it plain that authorities have a two-part obligation—first, to report what they are providing and the actions that they have taken as authorities, and, secondly, to report what they have learnt about what other bodies are doing in their area. We think that in practice the capacity of health authorities to report on what else is happening in their area will be good because in most cases there are already good links between the health authorities and the other agencies involved, but where such links have not yet been formed we hope that the duty to report will encourage those links to be developed or further strengthened in a way that will enable health authorities to provide a thorough picture of local activities.
Paragraph 5, formerly paragraph 7, clarifies the earlier requirement in former paragraph 7 to state the number of people employed by the health authority or board to work on AIDS and HIV by specifying that reports should cover only those working wholly or largely in those areas. That amendment is introduced to make explicit the intention of the provision—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) raised this point—that only people employed by the health authority or board who work entirely or substantially in those areas should be

counted. A large number of NHS staff may at some time perform some duties in relation to AIDS or HIV, but for planning purposes what is needed is to get a firm idea of the number of people whose main responsibilities are in that sphere.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that that could be slightly misleading? An authority might not be able to identify anyone who fulfils the criteria that he has just mentioned, but may have a significant number of people working in that broad area or allocated to it from time to time. If it reported a low or nil figure, that would not give the assurance that my hon. Friend feels the community needs that the authority was working hard on the matter. Is there that danger?

Mr. Newton: In practice, I doubt it. I am sure that health authorities will present such firm data as they think can sensibly be presented within the terms of the schedule. They will say that some people's time is spent to some extent on AIDS, or that as yet they have few cases in their area, so the need for people to be deployed on the clinical treatment of AIDS, as distinct from education and so on, is not there. I do not mean to be too dismissive of my hon. Friend's point. I can see the theoretical point, but in practice I do not believe that there will be a serious problem
I come to paragraph 6, which replaces the previous paragraph 5. As I said, we have provided that authorities and boards set out the facilities and services that they have provided in the reporting period, including the manpower issue, to which I referred, for tackling the spread of AIDS and HIV. The new paragraph requires them to make an assessment of the facilities and services that they intend to provide in the next year, so the new paragraph represents a significant extension of the information to be provided by health authorities and boards in their reports. It replaces the previous paragraph 5, which required authorities and boards to make some assessment of their future provision for people with AIDS. It seemed to us to be sensible to widen the provision so that, in line with the Bill as a whole, it encompasses not only people with AIDS—this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East— but the much wider group of those infected with HIV which, as the whole House acknowledges, in some ways is the most important figure, or may prove to be the most important figure, for planning purposes. I hope that that has helped to clarify still further the purpose of the paragraphs in the schedule and the reasons for the disappearance of one paragraph in particular from the previous schedule.

Mr. Bruinvels: rose——

Mr. Newton: I will come to some of the other points that have been raised, but I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bruinvels: I wanted to refer to paragraph 7, which mentions
the treatment, counselling and care of persons with AIDS or infected with HIV.
In view of the articles in the Daily Star and the News of the World, about the two nurses with AIDS and the three doctors, should it be a policy for those who have the disease or who are carriers to treat and care for those who also have the disease or are carriers?

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the reports that have appeared in the newspapers to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am not in a position to make any significant additional comment on them beyond the observation that there are few known cases of health care workers becoming infected with AIDS from patients with AIDS despite, in a number of instances, needle-stick injuries. As far as I am aware, there are no known cases in this country or in the United States, where experience is much more extensive for the obvious reason that, unhappily, there are many thousands more cases, of a person becoming infected by a health worker who was himself or herself infected. It is not the purpose of this part of the schedule to identify in the way that I sense my hon. Friend was suggesting. Apart from anything else, some rather acute confidentiality issues would be raised if a report were being made public.
With the exception of some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, to which I am about to respond, I think that I have covered all the specific points that have been put to me during the debate. If hon. Members feel that I have not responded to their interventions, I have no doubt that they will intervene again to remind me of their earlier contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcesteshire said that there is a risk that the requirement to publish reports will spread alarm. In many parts of the community there is a degree of alarm about AIDS, but we would be doing no service if we were to do anything to promote the spread or continuation of complacency about AIDS. In many communities it may be that the greater risk is complacency rather than excessive alarm.
East Anglia, for example, has had only five cases of clinical AIDS up to the end of February, and three of those people are now dead. The possibility cannot be ignored, however, that there are significant numbers within East Anglia who are infected with the virus and are HIV positive. We have no means of knowing what the number is because we do not know what the total number is. It is inherently likely, however, that the number of HIV positives is about 30,000 to 40,000. That is what we think most likely at present, but during the week it has been mentioned in one quarter that it could be 100,000. This means that there will he significant numbers of these people in East Anglia.
It would be a mistake to think that because in any given district there has been no AIDS case there are no potential AIDS cases and no people who are infected with virus. The case for making reports public and publishing such information as can be made available is justified in an imperfect world. In the years between now and the end of the century there will be few parts of the country which do not have some experience of AIDS cases, even though the scale and number will undoubtedly vary widely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire spoke about costs and pressures. Even without any requirement to report on anything in particular, it is not unknown for health authorities to seek to put pressure on central Government when it comes to the allocation of moneys and to draw attention to the desirability of having more of it. I entered the Chamber the night before last when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was replying to an Adjournment debate that had been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was assiduously joining in the debate with

other Leicester Members in making the case for additional funds for the Leicester health authority. I have no wish to encourage him to return to that issue today, still less to encourage demands for more money for Cambridge, Ealing, Gillingham, Reading or Grantham, for example. There are at least two Scottish Labour Members present, and fortunately their demands for more money would have to be directed to a different quarter.

Mr. Forth: Let me try to present a different angle. Let us suppose that I introduced a Bill that was based on the fact that 100,000 people die each year from nicotine-related diseases and placed an obligation on health authorities to identify these cases and to report on the resources being directed to them, thus providing a vehicle for specific pressure to be put on his Department centrally to provide more resources to treat the 100,000 suffering from a self-inflicted condition as a result of ingesting nicotine and related materials. It seems that we are departing on a new policy that could be used in future in the way that I have suggested. That is my concern

Mr. Newton: I was about to take on board that argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand— I accept that he made his case with a qualification and qualified it further later— that whatever view anyone may take about the background to some of those who are HIV positive, or have AIDS, having become ill, I as a health Minister must recognise that they are ill and need treatment. I think that it is right to proceed on that basis. My hon. Friend has now drawn an analogy that is stronger than some of those that he presented earlier, but by imposing a requirement on health authorities to publish reports we are seeking to make a contribution to the effort to prevent AIDS. At present we can proceed only by means of public education and better information in trying to curb the spread of a terrible disease that poses a considerable threat to many. The same considerations do not arise in relation to the treatment of other diseases which, though at least as unfortunate, can be tackled in other ways. It would be wrong for my hon. Friend to convey the impression that the Government are devoting a degree of importance, whether through their acceptance of the Bill or in other ways, to the prevention of AIDS that they do not attach to the taking of effective action against other health problems.
During the past month my right hon. Friend has announced the introduction of a national breast cancer screening programme to tackle that problem. He has also announced a further improvement——

Dr. Marek: Long overdue.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) should not tempt me.

Dr. Marek: It is the Minister who is tempting me.

Mr. Newton: At the same time, my right hon. Friend announced further steps to try to improve the cervical cancer screening programme which is under way and which represents a significant effort in that area. Within the next month, the health education authority, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security, will launch a major campaign directed at the problem of coronary heart disease, called "Look after your heart"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that perhaps we should now return to reports about HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Newton: I am sorry to have compounded the felony of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire by being enticed down the same path as him. I hope that I have said enough to make clear the lines of my answer. In requiring these reports, there is no question of neglecting other problems or of treating AIDS as special, except that we have a chance to stop that disease from becoming as disastrous as it could otherwise be. The background to the Bill is part of the effort to prevent that spread.

Dr. M. S. Miller: There is no doubt that the general thesis of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is right. He did not actually say what he wished to do, but I disagree with his feelings. In referring to self-inflicted conditions, I should like to make an analogy. It is well known that the commonest cause of death in young men between the ages of 18 and 25 is motor cycle accidents. Everyone knows that that is self-inflicted. All motor cyclists know the risk that they take. Does that mean that hospitals should not treat unfortunate young men who have motor cycle accidents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on the content of reports.

Mr. Newton: Another piece of specific legislation has proved sensible. I refer to the compulsory wearing of crash helmets. Legislation should be directed to the nature of the problem. This legislation and the subparagraph to the schedule are sensibly directed towards the problem. The seat belts legislation was sensibly directed towards another problem, as was the crash helmets legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Government will realise that it is important to be consistent and that they will encourage the making of reports, such as that produced the other day by the Health Education Council, so that maximum information may be available, on which all health decisions can be made, and not only what the Government consider, at the moment, to be the most important——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us now return to the point, shall we?

Mr. Newton: I must correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that that report was by the Health Education Council. He will know that the council has not considered that report and that it never properly discussed or commissioned it. The council did not know that the report was to be published or that a press conference was to be held. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, at least, register those points.
Without going down a path which will cause you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene again in my speech, I have pretty well exhausted all that I can say about this amendment and the revised schedule which it incorporates in the Bill. I hope that, even if I have dissatisfied you by the breadth of my remarks or failed to answer every last point or anxiety in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, I have at least dealt with the other points raised by hon. Members and that I leave them feeling reasonably satisfied.

Mr. Strang: I should like to respond briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Although I disagree with him, I recognise that some people in the country share his views. This is one of the rare occasions that we have had to respond to that point of view, which is in a minority in the House, about the Bill.
The Minister dealt with the issue of confidentiality. I have given that matter much thought, especially after the Minister raised it on Second Reading. The more that one considers it, the more one will reach the conclusion that the local press—the Minister referred to this specifically—will almost certainly find out about the AIDS cases in its communities, long before there is a published report relating to the 12-month reporting period. I stress that the Minister and I are both aware of that point. The Bill strikes the right balance in maintaining confidentiality so far as the risk exists.
I agree with the Minister that people must understand that this is the biggest threat to public health, certainly for half a century. Therefore, it is right that the community should be worried and should desire to educate itself about the disease.
We have amended the Bill to go some way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's point about expenditure. Paragraph 6 of the new schedule states that the authority or board will provide an estimate of the facilities and services
in the twelve months following the reporting period.
The existing schedule, at paragraph 5, states:
An estimate of the facilities or services which the Authority or Board will require.
Therefore, there has been a genuine attempt to meet the hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the "largely self-inflicted" element. We are not only talking about the tragic cases of haemophiliacs who have contracted the disease through blood transfusions and no fault of their own, or about babies. I am sad to say that a high proportion of babies in Edinburgh are born with AIDS. There is the highly-publicised case of Army personnel who returned from Africa and are located in Inverness. It appears from a recent press report that the fears that some had become infected are not justified. I ask the House to consider the position of the wife of one of those service men. Is someone suggesting that her case would be self-inflicted? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that.
The disease can undoubtedly be transmitted through heterosexual intercourse, if one party is a carrier - whether female or male. We do not know the efficiency of transmission through normal heterosexual intercourse, but it unquestionably occurs and may well become the main method of transmission. I stress that because some tabloid newspapers have almost implied that that hardly ever happens.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the United States is the main country where that has happened and that it is well-documented? Does he further agree that a comparison between the incidence of AIDS and other related diseases in and around San Francisco and New York on the one hand and in the Mid-West on the other strongly suggests that there is a connection between


voluntary practices, such as homosexuality and drug-related practices, and the incidence of the diseases? It would be stupid to deny that, and that is the basis of my point.

Mr. Strang: I agree that there is no point in denying the facts. The nature of one particular homosexual act means that the transmission of the disease is unquestionably more efficient and frequent. That is not in dispute. In England, but not in Scotland, a high proportion of cases are among homosexuals or bi-sexuals, but I believe that that will change. The disease will be with us for many years, and because there is much more heterosexual intercourse than homosexual intercourse, there will be more cases among heterosexuals in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has dealt with that point, I hope that he will return to amendment No. 9 and the contents of reports.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 7 of the schedule and education. Perhaps the most authoritative document available on AIDS is that of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States. The report states:
For at least the next several years, the most effective measure for significantly reducing the spread of HIV infection is education of the public, especially those individuals at higher risk.
That is the view of the Government and of most people involved in this problem.
The schedule is important. The hon. Member's concerns should not lead him to oppose the Bill. If it turns out that some of his fears about certain paragraphs of the schedule are justified, any subsequent Government will be able to replace or adjust the paragraphs.

Amendment agreed to.

Title

Amendment made, in line 2, at end insert 'and Human Immunodeficiency Virus.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

12 noon

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I preface my remarks by thanking everyone who has been involved in helping to reach this stage of the Bill. I pay tribute to the commitment of the Minister for Health. He has done a great deal of work. To a large extent, it is as a consequence of his interest in the matter and the fact that he has followed the request by the Secretary of State that we should seek to approach this issue on an all-party basis that the Bill has reached this stage. I thank the officials in the DHSS AIDS unit for their work. I also thank Howard Fidderman, who has done a large amount of work on my behalf. The British Medical Association has been most helpful. Many other organisations have contributed to the consultation and dialogue that have preceded this stage of the Bill.
I shall make a special reference to the people in Edinburgh. Tragically, as all hon. Members know, Edinburgh is experiencing the lull before the storm in relation to the disease. Over 50 per cent of injecting drug misusers are known to be infected with HIV. In a short time, we shall have hundreds of AIDS cases. I pay tribute to officials of the Lothian health board— I shall not

name them— and in Edinburgh district council and Lothian regional council. I also pay tribute to the councils. They are controlled by my party, but I make the point in a non-political way that both councils are adopting a responsible approach to working with the health board in the area in relation to the crisis in Edinburgh.
On HIV, clearly we agree that a new paragraph will be inserted into the schedule. It is important that we complement the schedule in plenty of time to enable us to have the best HIV estimates available for the first reports. The debate on AIDS last November was valuable. It was a credit to the House. In the debate on 21 November the Secretary of State referred to the delay between infection and the development of AIDS symptoms. He said that the average period was about five years. At that time, he reckoned that about 25 to 30 per cent. of carriers develop AIDS. Of course, if one develops AIDS, one dies. I wonder whether the Minister will state whether— perhaps it is too early to do so, following the conference that took place last Monday— the Government are thinking of revising their view of what proportion of people who become infected are likely to develop AIDS. The period of time between infection and AIDS manifesting itself may be five years or more. Therefore, it is important to discover whether this percentage is still the most reliable estimate.
The Bill is now much more comprehensive and practical. This is largely because the Government have been very helpful. The Bill, especially in the schedule, also provides for flexibility. This legislation represents the first long-term means of dealing with AIDS and it will be helpful until the end of the century. Its flexibility is important. With the consent of Parliament, the Secretary of State will be able to adjust and alter the schedule. Professionals throughout the country have given their overwhelming support to the Bill. Our debates show that there is overwhelming support for it, too, in the House.
I hope that Parliament will enact the Bill in the next few months. We are anxious that the reporting period provision should be implemented as early as possible so that, if reports are to be published in 1988, the first reporting period can end on 31 March 1988.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a duty to protect the rights of other hon. Members whose Bills appear on the Order Paper. I remind the House that the debate on Third Reading should he confined to comment on the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Rhodes James: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on the work that they have done on the Bill. It has been so refreshing to be able to work in an entirely non-political way. Unlike the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), most Members of Parliament are laymen, and they have had to deal with a new and ghastly problem. We are moving into uncharted waters. As laymen, our difficulty is that the expert advice is divided. That has increased our problems. The experts disagree on the key dilemma of how many carriers of HIV will contract AIDS.
Although we may not in the Bill be moving strictly in the direction of making AIDS a notifiable disease, that is nevertheless the direction in which we are moving. We are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) claims, spreading alarm. The


problem is different. Today the newspapers report that British business men are ignoring the warnings about their conduct when they visit foreign countries, in particular Africa.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to smallpox. This disease was eradicated. That was one of the greatest achievements of the United Nations. It was eradicated because there was the political will to do so. Polio could be eradicated, too. Global problems—and this is a global problem— can be met only by a global response. The Bill provides a further step towards the dissemination of information nationally, regionally and internationally.
I urge a great degree of honesty about educating the public. When the Earl of Avon died 18 months ago the press contacted me, as his father's biographer and as a friend of his, about the disease from which he died. I decided to tell the press the truth, but I asked them to remember that he had a family and friends and to handle the matter with sensitivity. The appeal worked. The press handled it with sensitivity. Honesty would lead to a real break through in public understanding and would help us to face what could be one of the gravest scourges of the century.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who worked so hard to make sure that the Bill reached this stage. I echo his thanks to the Minister and the officials.
The whole nature of the way in which we as representatives of the people have been challenged to face a new threat that has reached every part of the country has been to react by making sure that ignorance is broken down and that information and education are increased. The great thing about this short Bill is that if we can speed its way on to the statute book people will have reports containing accurate information that can be used to deal with the speculation and misinformation that lead to so many unhelpful suggestions, comments and reactions.
We have a joint responsibility to make sure that we work together as a community for two ultimate objectives. First, we must achieve as soon as possible a cure for the disease. Secondly, we must make sure that as long as people are afflicted by AIDS, either as carriers of the virus or as contractors of the disease, they will have available to them their Health Service and the talents of our people so that we can give those who may have many more years to live the opportunity to live a full life without discrimination or prejudice, and give them help and support during the most crucial period of their lives.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to be a more responsible community, and that will enable us to see the AIDS threat, not in the way that it has been seen up to now, as a threat to people's dignity, but as a challenge to us as a caring nation and respond to a new problem that has come our way so dramatically in recent years.

Dr. Marek: The House still has a lot of business before it, so I shall not repeat the points that I made in Committee. The points have been made by the hon.
Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). This is a good Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on presenting it and hope that it is successful in the other place. I am sure that Britain will benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Newton: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on introducing the Bill and on the vast amount of work that he and his assistant have put into getting it right. The hon. Gentleman kindly said that I and my officials had done a lot of work as well. I hope that that is true. Certainly I feel that I have reached the stage of taking almost as fatherly an interest in the Bill as has the hon. Gentleman.
Although the Bill is deliberately limited in its scope, it is a helpful step in the fight against this disease. The information that will be contained in the annual reports from health authorities and boards will paint a valuable picture of the situation across the country. It will help to fill in some gaps in our knowledge and may be of special value in those areas that have yet to experience the full brunt of the disease.
In addition, the essential work of local and national planning that will have to go on will be assisted by having this information produced on a regular basis and in a format that will enable useful comparisons to be made. I confirm our intention that the reporting period will be the same throughout the United Kingdom. We are still considering the precise period, but it will probably be related to the financial year rather than to the calendar year, in order to tie it in with other statistical returns that are used for planning purposes. That covers a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
The details are not included in the Bill, because it is sensible to keep an element of flexibility to avoid the need for primary legislation if changes in the reporting year become desirable. As the Bill now stands, The Secretary of State is able to prescribe appropriate reporting periods in secondary legislation. I underline the commitment in the Bill that the first reports will be published before the end of next year. That again relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
Northern Ireland has not been mentioned today, but preparation of the Northern Ireland legislation is in hand. The Order in Council relating to Northern Ireland will be made as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
It is clear from our proceedings this morning that, with some reservations about wider matters, the Bill has the full support of the House, and certainly that of the Government. A number of helpful amendments have been made, which will increase its value. I hope that the Bill will enable all of us who have been concerned in its proceedings to feel that we have at least made some contribution to one of the most important tasks facing this Parliament and anyone who is concerned with health in this country. We must do all that we can to prevent the spread of the disease. If we have taken even a small step in that direction this morning, it has been a morning well spent. I commend the Bill and advise the House to agree to its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to,

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Crossbows Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Much has happened since the Second Reading on 30 January and the Committee stage on 25 February. I want to thank all members of the Committee and all my supporters for their help during the passage of the Bill to date.
Many representations have continued to come into my office since the Bill was first announced. I am still as strongly committed to the Bill as I was on day one. It is a fact of life that any crossbow in good condition and set up properly can put any competent rifleman rapidly on target. The only difference between shooting a crossbow and a rifle is that of missile speed and trajectory. Both travel at 250 ft a second.
These are killer machines. They are weapons of death, weapons of violence and weapons of crime, and are lethal to human beings and animals alike. Any action that will lessen violence must be considered any small contribution to the fight against rising crime.
We must remember that crossbows can kill without making a sound. More evidence of their accuracy has come to light since our last debate. We know that they can be very accurate at distances of up to 25 yd. In competitions, ranges of up to 60 yd are used, but that requires great skill on the part of the shooter.
A powerful crossbow has potential as a hunting weapon—it can be used to kill a deer or a person at 25 to 30 yd. At 50 to 60 yd, although not so very accurate, a crossbow can still kill. At 100 yd it can inflict a serious injury, although the chances of its hitting the target are remote.
The newspaper reports in the past few days have been just as worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who sends his apologies for being absent today, has sent me a cutting from the Guardian and Gazette for 13 March 1987, which, under the heading, "Crossbow bolt into school", said:
Pupils had a lucky escape on Monday when a metaltipped crossbow bolt was fired into a school physics laboratory.
The bolt came in like a bullet…He"—
that is the head of the joint sixth form centre
told the Gazette that the bolt's speed was such that it did not even shatter the window.
An incident described in The Journal, a Newcastle upon Tyne publication, on 9 February 1987, is similarly horrifying. Under the heading
Sniper in crossbow bus attack
it said,
Police were last night hunting a sniper who fired a 14-inch long metal arrow into a passing bus and narrowly missed a young mother and her two-year-old child.
Either could easily have been killed, and the bus driver and a passenger leapt from the double-decker to chase the bowman, but could not see him in the darkness.
The Times, on 4 December 1986, provided further evidence. Under the heading,
Life for man who shot and killed gardener with homemade rifle".
It said:
A man was yesterday jailed for life for a killing during a robbery in which he and two accomplices used crossbows and a home-made rifle to steal cash, jewellery and antiques worth

£6,000. His son and Dougal used crossbows to maim a great dane and two boxer dogs, and Terence Clark shot the great dane dead.
The Daily Telegraph of 25 February, under the heading,
Man shot in leg by crossbow
said that a postman
was recovering in hospital last night after being shot by an unknown attacker with a crossbow while he stood at a bus stop.
He was
hit by a bolt from the weapon which went 7 in into his thigh.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has recorded nearly 200 crossbow attacks on animals during 1986. There has been a significant increase in attacks.
The Leatherhead Advertiser referred to the
work of a fiend
and a
Cat's week of agony with crossbow wound".
The RSPCA reports that a person in Carmarthen shot a family pet, a cat, with a crossbow bolt and shows a nasty photograph of that suffering cat.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his support. On 3 December 1986 he said:
Crossbows are, however, dangerous weapons in the wrong hands, and I do not consider that they are suitable to be in possession of unsupervised young people."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 633.]
In the Daily Mail he said that he was "keen" to act fast on crossbow law. The House of Lords debated this matter on 24 March and the concern expressed about wanting the crossbow legislation to be supported so as to ban these weapons of death was as great as mine.
A money resolution has not been required because the Home Office obviously wants this legislation. No additional funds are requested by the House.
In our debates on clause 6 we discussed increasing the fines and penalties imposed on people of 17 who injure themselves, their animals and other people by using crossbows. The Committee considered that the penalty under level 3 of a fine of £400 was not sufficiently high. understand that, under section 36(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as amended by the Criminal Penalties etc. (Increase) Order 1984, statutory instrument No. 447/1984, magistrates courts cannot impose on a person under 17 a fine exceeding £400 for any offence. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that all fines and penalties are increased from time to time, as they were in 1984. I hope that the penalties imposed on a child under 17 for buying, hiring or possessing a crossbow and receiving a level 3 fine are liable to be upgraded in line with inflation, as presumably are all other fines. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for sending me the Home Office guidelines on court sentences. The level 5 fine imposed on a person who sells crossbows is £2,000. Although I welcome that as being naturally tough, as one who believes in tough sentencing, I hope that it will also be upgraded in line with inflation.
The legislation provides for the punishments to ensure that young social miscreants will not take advantage of being able easily to get hold of crossbows. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already sent out guidelines to all traders to ensure that they are made aware that if they sell a crossbow—a weapon of death—to someone under 17 they will be liable to severe penalties, including a term of imprisonment and a £2,000 fine.
The statistics show that it is important that the Bill is put on the statute book as quickly as possible. In 1986 there were 115 incidents of misuse of crossbows. Of those incidents, five were domestic. There were two suicides, two attempted suicides, one misuse of a crossbow, 10 injuries to persons and many nasty injuries to animals. That is a terrible, shocking indictment of the way in which our young behave.
The letters that I have received to wish me good luck with the Bill are the most supportive that I have received on any matter other than the death penalty. I pay tribute to the Police Federation, which said:
We strongly support your Bill. Crossbows should only be available to persons who have bona fide rights to use them … The only logical bona fide users are sportsmen who are practised in the art of this type of weapon.
The National Farmers Union says that it supports me in my efforts to
secure a modicum of control over the availability of crossbows for sale.
It goes on to say:
Successive Governments have declined to take positive action to combat the growing menace of this silent but lethal weapon, and we welcome the support for your Bill offered by the present Government.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says:
Following your success in the ballot for Private Members' Bills I was pleased to see that you have taken on the issue of stricter crossbow control.
The British Veterinary Association says that it supports my endeavours to,
introduce some controls over the sale and use of crossbows and therefore welcomes your Bill".
It gives me great pleasure to move the Third Reading of the Bill. I know that the Bill will punish those who misuse these weapons. I know that the House will support my Bill to control this shocking misuse of crossbows. I know that by prohibiting the sale of crossbows to anyone under the age of 17 years and by prohibiting the hire of crossbows to those same people we will prevent crossbows from falling into the hands of unsupervised youngsters. The situation as it was was undesirable. The legislation that I am trying to introduce today is similar to the firearms legislation. Indeed, I used very similar wording to the firearms legislation.
There will be a proper power of search to ensure that no crossbow can be whipped into o a football ground, reassembled and let off, injuring football spectators. The sale, purchase and possession of crossbows by those under 17 years of age will be enshrined in the Bill to prevent abuse in the future. I urge all tradesmen to act responsibly to ensure that they do not sell crossbows to people under the age of 17 years.
I should like to thank the Daily Mail for the use of its thunderbolt crossbow, which at one time I tried to bring into the House. Most of the hon. Members who saw it were amazed by the accuracy of the bolt and the bow. I should like to wish the Bill every success in another place, where it will be guided through by Lord Brougham and Vaux.
I pay tribute to the Home Office civil servants, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The Bill is desperately needed. It will stop crossbow misuse protect animals and children and take temptation out of the minds of some evil-minded young people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I shall repeat the advice that I offered to the House earlier, because I have a duty to protect the rights of hon. Members whose Bills are on the Order Paper. On Third Reading, speeches should be confined to comment on the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Ted Garrett: I apologise for not being here at the start of this short debate, but I was detained at Heathrow by circumstances beyond my control.
I was a supporter of the Bill and I rise to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) for the skill and tenacity that he has shown in getting the Bill this far in its stages through Parliament. The Bill is needed and it has the right balance. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the help and guidance that he gave us in Committee. I speak on behalf of some of the supporters from the Opposition parties who, unfortunately, are not present today, in wishing the Bill well in its further stages.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I do not wish to delay progress on the Bill for long, but I feel that it is important that, on behalf of Conservative Back Benchers, I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on taking his Bill this far.
The Bill is an ideal example of how private Members' time can be used to great advantage. The whole of society, and particularly people with a great love for animals, are greatly in my hon. Friend's debt. People have been able to get away for far too long with using these lethal weapons and I am sorry that the problem was not tackled in earlier legislation. However, better late than never.
My only regret is that the Bill does not go further, because I believe that many people over the age of 17 also act irresponsibly. However, we must consider the Bill as a first step and I hope that the Home Office will watch matters carefully and see how the statistics move after the passing of the Bill. I also hope that, if necessary, we can extend the provisions of the Bill to other groups of people and perhaps introduce licences for crossbows.
My hon. Friend gave us some horrific details of how crossbows have been used at football matches and against animals. I feel that older people might have been responsible for such actions, but I welcome the Bill as a first step and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On behalf of the Labour party, I welcome the Bill. Home Office Ministers have been receiving representations from Labour Members on the growing worry about the accessibility of all sorts of weapons to virtually anyone who seriously wants to get them.
The Bill introduces an element of restriction on the sale of crossbows, but we should like it to go considerably further, although we realise that we could not expect that of a private Member's Bill. We have made representations to the Home Secretary in favour of much greater controls on the advertising and sale of all weapons, about the establishment of shops that sell such weapons and about whether we can agree changes in the law on the possession of weapons, including the increasing use of knives in


criminal activities. We want the public and the police to be protected from the growing use of weapons by criminals.
We hope that the Home Secretary will speed up his consideration of our representations and that the House will support measures to make our country a safer place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Brunviels) on the persuasive way in which he introduced his Bill. He has taken it through the House with great distinction, and that has not been entirely easy, because complicated points of law and practice are involved and my hon. Friend had to carry the measure through its Committee stage. I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his achievements, not least the securing of all-party support for the Bill.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) in his place, because he played a prominent part in the Committee stage of the Bill, and his support was greatly appreciated. I am also pleased to see a number of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and have spoken in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne).
The Bill is important, and it is equally important that its purpose and direction are fully understood. Clause 1 is designed to close a gap in the law that has existed for a long time. Although there are restrictions on the right to possess offensive weapons, there has not hitherto been any restriction on the selling or letting for hire of crossbows. Clause 1 contains the main provision of the Bill, which introduces a restriction on the ability of a vendor or hirer to sell, or let on hire, a crossbow.
We could have proceeded in a number of ways. We have been contemplating, and will introduce, guidance to traders, but we felt that we should go further and impose a statutory prohibition. There is at present no definition of the word crossbow, which troubled hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, we came to the conclusion that the word did not require a definition on the face of the Bill: the animal was perfectly recognisable. There is also no amplification of the defence of "reasonable ground" that appears on the face of the Bill. Again, we concluded—I think that most hon. Members agree—that the courts are in a position, and experienced enough, to determine the meaning of the phrase in the context of such a statutory provision.
If I had to summarise clause 1, I would say that it makes it an offence for a dealer to sell or hire a crossbow to anyone under the age of 17, unless he has reasonable ground to believe that that person is 17 or older. I am emphasising the responsibilities of the dealer, but the prohibition is general, and would apply equally to the non-dealer. However, for our present purposes, we are concerned with the primary mischief, which must inevitably involve the dealer.
That is the main impact of clause 1, but it also extends to mail order offences. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was very concerned about the mail order sale of crossbows. Clause 1, couched in its present form, would extend to such sales. A person who sold a crossbow by mail order to a person under the age of 17 would be committing an offence, unless the statutory defence provided in the clause was satisfied.
Clause 2 makes it an offence for persons under 17 to buy or hire a crossbow, or part of a crossbow. It is, as it were, the other part of clause 1. I should emphasise one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East raised the question of the relationship between principal and agent. What would happen if an under-age person obtained the services of an over-age person to purchase a crossbow or part of a crossbow? The over-age person might be committing an offence by assisting another person to commit an offence. Moreover, there might be such a close connection between the under-age person and the over-age person as to enable the court to say that the under-age person was committing an offence through the intervention of the over-age person. I hope that the House will think that we have dealt with the anxieties so eloquently expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East.
Of course, we have not concentrated only on the offence of sale. We have also concentrated on the offence of "letting on hire". If we did not have that provision, it would not be difficult for an unscrupulous dealer to push a coach and horses through the legislation.
Clause 3 adds another particular offence—possession of a crossbow, or parts of a crossbow, which
can be assembled to form a crossbow capable of discharging a missile".
Clause 3 deals with several concepts. The first involves the words "who has with him". I have been asked by hon. Members about the import of that phrase. It is narrower than the concept of possession. In law the concept of possession does not inevitably involve the concept of control. The phrase "who has with him" involves a concept of control, so if a crossbow is put on the wall of a room by an under-age person's parents, the chances are that the court would not say of the under-age person in the room that he had the crossbow "with him" because he has no control over it. If we had used the word "possession" the court might come to a wholly different conclusion.
The concept of supervision involves presence, knowledge and control. I hope the House believes that we have gone sufficiently far in clause 3 to meet the mischief with which we are concerned—a young person having in his possession a crossbow.
Hon. Members have asked me about the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. They say, "Is not a crossbow an offensive weapon for the purpose of that statute?" That has not been decisively determined by the courts. The best advice that I have received—and it is my opinion— is that a crossbow is not, per se, an offensive weapon. The question is whether the prosecution could establish a criminal intent to use it as an offensive weapon. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East sensibly ensures in the Bill that there is a particular offence of having a crossbow "with him".

Mr. Dobson: I was not here for the Committee stage, but I am interested in the subject. I am slightly perturbed' about what seems to be a restrictive element in clause 3 (b), which states that it will be an offence if someone possesses
parts of a crossbow, which together (and without any other parts) can be assembled to form a crossbow capable of discharging a missile.
That seems restrictive, because it is possible for someone with parts of a crossbow in his possession to throw away a vital part such as the trigger mechanism, which is quite small. He would be able to demonstrate that he had with him parts of the crossbow that could not be assembled to


form a crossbow capable of discharging a missile. I believe that some people who would be carrying parts of a crossbow in such circumstances are exactly the type of people who are pretty fly about slinging away the necessary bit. I wonder whether the restriction can be attended to in the House of Lords?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member has shown that he should be a defence lawyer. Clearly, he is a lawyer manque at heart. I often wonder why he bothers to intervene in the debates on health. He knows a certain amount about the law, but I am not sure that he knows so much about health care, but that is a different matter.

Mr. Dobson: It is because I have Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn in my constituency.

Mr. Hogg: I am delighted by that observation.
The hon. Gentleman's argument needs careful examination. He is suggesting that if a potential offender disposes of the trigger, the string or some other essential part of the crossbow, the prosecution would be unable to establish an offence under clause 3. However, it is a matter of evidence.
If a young person is seen traipsing down the street holding a crossbow in a collapsed form and is stopped, and if a puddle is seen to well up in an adjoining canal, and if perchance the trigger is missing, I do not think that it would be beyond the scope of a clever police officer to say, "My friend, did you throw the trigger away?" Or perhaps, "Why are you going about with a collapsed crossbow that does not have a trigger?" That sort of question would appeal to any police officer faced with such a problem. If the police officer could satisfy the court that the young offender cast the trigger into the canal and hence caused the puddle, the offence would be proved. It is a matter of evidence.

Mr. Dobson: I was not trying to make a daft debating point. I believe that the qualifications in clause 3 (b) will, at some stage in the proceedings at a magistrates court or Crown court, end up with the police giving evidence and some slick lawyer, no doubt from Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn in my constituency, successfully pleading that the pieces of the crossbow were not capable of being made up into a crossbow that could discharge a missile. The Home Office officials have been helpful and I believe that it would be worth while if they studied this problem and came up with something better. We do not want the police to be faced with taking people to court and then not succeeding because of something daft that we have done in this House.

Mr. Hogg: If I may say so, my advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not refer to his constituents as "slick lawyers"—

Mr. Dobson: They are stupid lawyers.

Mr. Hogg: Stupid lawyers! If the hon. Gentleman insists on referring to his constituents in such pejorative terms, he should not be the least bit surprised when they refuse to vote for him.

Mr. Dobson: I do not expect them to vote for me.

Mr. Hogg: I am not in the least bit surprised.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Carlisle: If that is the view of my Member of Parliament, I certainly shall not vote for him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I believe that we should get back to crossbows.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that we should let the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) off the hook, as I see that he is becoming increasingly embarrassed. In the desire to maintain the all-party spirit on this legislation, I believe that we must press ahead.
With regard to clauses 1, 2 and 3, I believe that we have got the balance about right or I should say that my hon. Friend the member for Leicester, East has got the balance right. There are several competing interests that we have to take into account. The first is the absolute necessity to introduce some form of statutory control of the type that we have discussed. Secondly, we have to bear in mind that there is a legitimate sporting activity that needs to be protected. This sport is growing, and my hon. Friend is anxious that it should be protected, and he is right. I believe that in the fullness of time it will have Olympic status. As my hon. Friend knows, the sport is enjoyed by the handicapped. My hon. Friend's reputation in this sphere is second to none. Therefore, we have to take into account the need to protect the genuine sportsman.
The third, and equally important, point is the need to maintain employment. As the House knows, about 700 jobs, excluding retail, are involved. The principal manufacturer is Barnett International. I do not have the figures beyond 1985, but I understand that in 1985 the turnover was over £4 million, that about 16,000 or 17,000 crossbows were sold in England and Wales, and that the majority— about 85 per cent.— of crossbows are exported. Therefore, when we consider such legislation, we must keep a balance between the need to impose restrictions, the desire to protect the sportsman and the need to protect the industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East feels that we have the balance about right.
One aspect of getting the balance right is clause 5, which deals with toy crossbows. Not many toy crossbows are produced—it is a small market—but the most obvious example is a crossbow called the Bandit, which is manufactured by Barnett International. The draw weight, as a concept, is the weight necessary to cock the crossbow. The Home Office forensic science department has looked at what would be a safe weight. The Bandit, which is an example of a toy crossbow, has a draw weight of 2·5 lbs. Taking, for safety— to take account of fluctuations in batches—a draw weight of 3 lbs, that justifies the figure of 1·4 kg, which appears in clause 5. By introducing that limit, we hope to ensure that toys that are marketed as toys are not subject to the prohibition in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East spoke about penalties, which are the subject of clause 6. We have made a distinction between the punishment that can be awarded to a person committing an offence under clause 1 and the punishment that can be imposed on the underage person under clauses 2 and 3. In clause 1 we are dealing with a maximum of six months' imprisonment, or a scale 5 fine, which is £2,000 whereas offences under clauses 2 and 3 are punishable by a scale 3 fine.
My hon. Friend is correct in his description of the reason why we could not impose a more substantial fine on the under-age offender. The legislation prevents us from imposing a fine in excess of £400 on a person under 17. He asked whether the legislation dealing with fines is likely to result in uprating. It is. There is a procedure for the uprating of scales, and that will happen. However, as inflation is reduced to low figures, which is the consequence of the Government's policy, we do not uprate the figures as often as they had to be in the days when the Labour party was in charge, when it was supported for a considerable time by the Liberal party. That is another point that my hon. Friend might bear in mind.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly urged upon me the need to respect the business of the House, in the sense that there are other pressing measures to be debated. Therefore, I should draw my remarks to a conclusion. I should like to end as I began, by saying that the Home Office was pleased to have the opportunity of supporting the Bill, so eloquently argued and skilfully carried through by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCIL

Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move amendment No. I, in page 2, line 14, after 'effect', insert
'with the insertion at the end of paragraph 1 (information concerning employees of the authority) of the words "or any regional health authority or district health authority within whose region or district the authority exercises functions" and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we shall take amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Lewis: The Bill was considered shortly Committee and it was found that one or two things had been overlooked, hence these three tidying-up amend-ments. Amendment No. 1 is fairly simple. It addresses the need to include employees of district and regional health authorities in the exemption that the Secretary of State can order from having to disclose information under the Bill. He may do so when personal reasons are involved.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 merely substitute "district" for "area". We failed to notice in Committee that the old descriptions of health authorities had been used instead of the ones that followed the 1980 legislation.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I support the amendments. The Government have an obvious interest in ensuring that any legislation that reaches the statute book is as good as it can be made. There were defects in the Bill, and the amendments put things right.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 34, leave out `Area' and insert 'District'.
No. 3, in line 36, leave out 'Area' and insert 'District'.— [Mr. Terry Lewis.]

Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been referred to by some colleagues as a minnow, and I have described it as modest. It is another useful step, however, towards freedom of information. It is a useful and not faltering step to opening up Government and public life affairs to those who use the services of the National Health Service. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported it, not least the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). The hon. Lady has given invaluable support and I have been talked about for being seen with her in the corridors of the House over the past few months. On these occasions we have been seeking to smooth the passage of the Bill. I thank the officials of the DHSS and the parliamentary draughtsmen for the help that they have given.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) for


piloting this extra piece of freedom of information legislation through the House. The Bill has enjoyed allparty support and we made sure in Committee that we got it as right as we could. The Bill will allow those in the Health Service, which is one of the issues of the greatest national concern, to be able to feel that they are more in control and more well-equipped with information. It will have a significant effect on people's access to information about the Health Service. It is a fundamental improvement, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill.

Mr. Newton: First, in a more than conventional way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on getting his Bill to this stage. He has kindly acknowledged the help that he has been given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I hope that I can modestly claim that I too was as helpful as I could be, slightly behind the scenes, at an earlier stage, in enabling us to have this debate today. That is a slightly roundabout way of saying that, although we would not have chosen to legislate in this area—I am certain that we would not have regarded it as a priority for Government legislation—as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are ready to accept the Bill.
It has been suggested that the provisions are rather heavy for small bodies, such as community health councils, to comply with. Frankly, I do not agree with that. Provided that they are well organised, it should be within their competence and resources to implement the Bill's provisions. As community health councils are normally advocates of openness, and provided that they sincerely wish to be as open as possible, they will not need bureaucratic mechanisms to implement its provisions.
Although Ministers of all political colours and persuasions occasionally find the comments of community health councils tiresome—indeed, they occasionally find tiresome the comments of regional and district health authorities—a community health council which works well performs a useful function in articulating some of the concerns of local people and groups about the Health Service. Those councils have, of course, a statutory position on consultation written in in relation to closure proposals, giving them significant capacity to make their views known and to ensure that they are considered. It is entirely within their purpose, function and approach to the Health Service that those councils should deal with the public as openly as possible themselves. Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to conform with the obligations imposed by the Bill.
I am happy to allow the House to decide that without further guidance from me and to say that the Bill should have a Third Reading.

Mr. Frank Dobson: It is appropriate that on the weekend when the Prime Minister is going to Moscow we should welcome this little bit of what Mr. Gorbachev would refer to as "glasnost" on the activities of community health councils.
One of the problems of improving access to information is that we seem to take one step forward, but two steps backwards. Therefore, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on this extension to freedom of information in the week when, but for a stand of principle by Sir Douglas Black, the former president of the Royal College of Physicians, we might never have heard of the report from the Health Education Council on the health divide in this country. Nevertheless, I welcome this measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to explain briefly the purpose and effect of the Bill. It has a respectable parentage in that it puts into effect a recommendation of the Royal Commission on gambling, which was chaired by Lord Rothschild. It also had a considerable period of gestation, since the Royal Commission reported as long ago as July 1978. Therefore, there has been a gestation period of nine years, rather than the more usual nine months.
The Bill amends section 18 of the Gaming Act 1968, which is the parent Act, and relates to the control of gaming. Section 18 deals with the hours of gaming in permitted casinos and clubs on a Sunday. At present on weekdays gaming may take place between 2 pm and 4 am, but on Saturday night to Sunday the hours are different. In London they are from 2 pm on Saturday until 3 am on Sunday, which is an hour less than on weekdays, and in the rest of the country it is from 2 pm until 2 am, which is two hours less. Ironically, Saturday night is the most popular night, and the Royal Commission drew attention to that illogicality. It stated:
We find it rather illogical that casinos should have to close one or two hours earlier on Saturday night/Sunday morning (which is perhaps the most popular night of the week for gaming) than on other nights, we therefore recommend that the closing time for casinos should be 4 am. on each night of the week and in all parts of the country.
The Bill makes casino hours on Sunday the same as for the rest of the week in London and the rest of the country.
That recommendation not only comes from the Royal Commission but has the support of the Gaming Board. We discussed the matter with the board, which is satisfied that there is an unstimulated demand for the Bill. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Harris of Greenwich and received the support of both Front Benches. The Opposition spokesman was Baroness Ewart-Biggs who pointed out that the Bill was needed by the casinos and would be welcomed by those who use them.
Casinos are a substantial foreign currency earner. About 115 licensed casinos under the control of the Gaming Board raise about £150 million in foreign currency a year.
I commend the Bill to the House. It received support from both sides in the House of Lords, is approved by the Gaming Board and implements the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As I represent Burton on Trent, which is fast becoming the slot-machine manufacturing centre of Britain, I support the Bill. It is patent to everybody that any sensible flexibility which meets with the approval of all interested parties will be good for Britain and tourism.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The casino economy.

Mr. Lawrence: Labour Members may laugh at the casino economy. We do not have a casino economy, but we have a thriving, prosperous economy which has been underlined by the remarkable success and achievement of the Budget. [Interruption.] It is remarkable that every

success for Britain becomes a failure for the Labour party. There is no doubt that, when a Chancellor can reduce taxes and public borrowing, and increase public spending on education and health by nearly £5 billion, it is a great achievement. This is not, of course, a casino economy. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) speak with their tongues in their cheeks.
The object of the exercise is to increase employment, and all hon. Members would want to do that. There is no greater immediate scope for the increase of employment than the improvement of tourism. That requires flexibility and good sense in our gaming laws. It also requires flexibility and good sense in our licensing laws. I am anxious that we should get on to the next business. I hope that we shall be able to advance the flexibility and good sense of the Government's licensing policy and that it will reach the statute book.
Of course, jobs depend upon tourism. It is not only the employment of croupiers and people who work in casinos that are attractive to foreign tourists, but a considerable number of people in Burton on Trent owe their jobs to the expansion of that part of the casino industry that relies upon gaming machines.
We must compliment all those who are concerned with the introduction of this Bill, both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I give considerable credit and thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) who introduced the Bill. I am sure that, notwithstanding the ribaldry of Opposition Members, it will gain the support of all hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (M r. Carlisle) has explained the purpose of and justification for the Bill. It remains for me to do just two things. First, the Government support the Bill. wish it well and hope that it receives its Third Reading. Secondly, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the clear and lucid way in which he described what is inevitably a rather complicated aspect of the law.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Bill in no way affects the powers of licensing justices to control a casino. It provides only for maximum permitted hours.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is wholly right. I am glad that he raised that point.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the tactical skill that he and Lord Harris of Greenwich have shown in securing the passage of the Bill through the two Houses.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who is responsible for the accuracy of the Annunciator? My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) dashed into the Chamber because, as I understand it, when I was speaking on the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill, the Annunciator announced that Mr.


Dubs was speaking. Despite the close physical resemblance between us, and also the exceedingly crowded Chamber today, which would explain any confusion, we would like an end put to this error. It has happened several times.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker I have sympathy with the people who work the Annunciators. My hon. Friend and I are often mistaken for each other. He is called Alf and I am called Frank! I understand the reason for the confusion. Nevertheless, it would help if the matter could be sorted out, notwithstanding, as my hon. Friend said, the resemblance between our appearances.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am often mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), although he is much more attractive than I am. At an engagement the other evening, I was mistaken for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). I understand why those who operate the machinery can be confused.
I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to another problem. When I looked at the Annunciator, I saw that the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) was being discussed in Committee. I hurtled into the Chamber and began to prepare my address to a crowded House for Third Reading, only to find that we were nearing the end of the Third Reading debate. If my Third Reading speech bore any marks of inadequate preparation, it was due to the fact that I was not sufficiently alerted by the Annunciator to the fact that the debate on Third Reading had already begun and that the Committee stage was over.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order. The Committee stage was dealt with very efficiently and quickly. I sympathise with those who run the Annunciator system. I am often confused when I look round the Chamber and have to call hon. Members to speak. However, I shall certainly have the matter looked into.

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Amendment) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[30 January]— That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Bill was introduced on 30 January by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and the whole House has congratulated him on his good fortune. I, alas, cannot congratulate him on the long title. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has already said that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the lack of flexibility in the licensing hours, but the narrowness of the Bill's provisions do not serve well either the House or the British public.
The licensing principle in respect of the consumption of liquor is sometimes misrepresented. In any debate on these subjects reference is made to the accident by which licensing began during the 1914–18 war. Reference is made to munitions and Lloyd George and to the fact that we are still hampered by those wartime impositions. Licensing is, however, appropriate. The present laws and regulations may not be the best, but it is questionable to claim that some sort of licensing and control is inappropriate. Although it can be beneficial, alcohol is a dangerous substance. Our previous debate illustrated that fact.
Society has become much more complex since the regulations were introduced. Years ago, carts and horses were not licensed. It was only when motor cars were invented that motor cars and their drivers had to be licensed. The philosophy of Conservative Members is that the influence of the state must be got rid of as much as possible. However, even in the most extreme Right-wing regimes that Conservative Members may personally favour there are regulations to deal with dangerous substances. For example, nobody would think of getting rid of the regulations covering dangerous substances in chemical works, or in nuclear power stations, or in any other manufacturing process; nor would they think of getting rid of the regulations covering guns or crossbows, a subject that we debated a short time ago. Therefore, there must be some form of regulation by statute covering dangerous substances. I think there is universal agreement that alcohol, given its conditions of sale, taxation and use, must at least be seen as a potentially dangerous substance. The recent crime figures showing an increase in violence, which I shall deal with shortly, bear that out.
As I have said, the Bill deals with only one aspect of these regulations—the period of licensing. It increaes the period during which licensed premises may, on application to justices, be kept open. That period is 13 hours, during which time the premises can be open for only 12 hours between 10.30 am and 11.30 pm. If a licence is given for a flexible hour, the licensee will decide which hour out of those 13 hours he must close his premises.
Judging by the speeches in the earlier part of Second Reading, this looks a reasonable arrangement. Many reasonable speeches were made by Conservative hon. Members. Indeed, one can make a reasonable case based entirely on hours and human freedom, but I want to put this into a rather wider perspective, because we cannot dissociate hours and availability from the whole question


of consumption of alcohol. its effect on the general health of the nation, the use to which it is put and the dangers that might arise from an extra half hour in the general licensing period of many premises.
The hon. Member for Eastwood will agree, I hope, that at first glance the relatively modest effect of the Bill seems to be an extra half-hour of drinking time or drinking-up time in most licensed premises. I think I see him nod assent to that assumption. That would be the general effect of the Bill in any premises that avail themselves of the facility—if it is approved.
I shall not dwell on the consumption of alcohol in other places. The consumption of alcohol on licensed premises has many advantages, and those were advertised in the previous debate. Of course there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of alcohol in the home, and its general availability is now much greater that it was. The House may or may not have been cognisance of the social repercussions of that on society. Television advertising and example—that the smart thing to do is to consume increased amounts of alcohol—are beyond the scope of the Bill.
When the hon. Member for Eastwood replies to the debate, perhaps he will tell us whether he has made any estimate of the likely increase in hours during which licensed premises will be open. I am not sure of the present general availability of alcohol, because that varies from one part of Britain to another. No doubt licensed premises will not make use of all the time during which they can open. It is entirely up to the licensee to open for a shorter time than he did before, and if there is a movement towards later closing—which I suspect will be the trend if the Bill goes through—there will be many half-hours at the end of the day.
I should also be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has made any estimate of the increased hours that will be available in on-licence premises. In the previous debate I think it was said that there would probably be a 75 per cent. take-up of the facilities that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
There is a good deal of support for well-managed houses on the on-system. There is much advantage in having consumption in the right atmosphere under the right sort of management and conditions. That view was universal in the House during the last debate. Well managed clubs and houses have an attraction of their own, and the consumption of alcohol can be carried out there in a proper, well-regulated atmosphere in which civilised behaviour prevails and there are no difficulties. That is a generally accepted and advantageous feature of the existing regulations. It is one of the distinct advantages of the present regulation and licensing system, particularly for the brewers, who can ensure that the licensees—in free houses, the management—live up to the standards required by the locality.
We all know that there are pressures on some licensees to increase consumption, particularly if they are managers who are not licensing their own houses. Not everyone agrees to increased consumption, and some licensing sessions can become fairly lively when the subject is discussed. Police sanctions may be applied, and there may be complaints from neighbours.
Not long ago, I was receiving constant complaints in my constituency about certain licensed premises. I told the person concerned that all he had to do was to go to the next brewster session and complain. The next day, I went

to the premises to check, and found that they had been closed by agreement between the police and the brewers, who agreed that things had gone too far and had to stop. That is another advantage of the present system, and I am sure that none of us is against it.
We must examine the effect of the extra time that may become available, and, in particular, the half-hour at the end of the day. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Eastwood said:
The British Tourist Authority has estimated that the Bill would create about 50,000 extra jobs and the brewers' estimate is an extra 25,000."—[Official Report, 30 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 640.]
That is an enormous number of extra jobs. No hon. Member would wish any opportunity for increased employment to be cast aside lightly. Employment in any area may have advantages, but I want the hon. Member for Eastwood to tell us what those jobs mean. If they are to be created, the people who perform them must be paid. The increased income to pay for 75,000 jobs must conic from somewhere, and I can only conclude that it will come from the profits or turnover generated by the increased consumption on licensed premises.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much extra consumption will take place. If the new jobs are to be sustained, the cash for them must come from somewhere. It can only come from money paid over the bar, in cash or credit, for the increased consumption.
The Bill may have many more repercussions than are suggested in its long and short titles. If some of the increased consumption takes place towards the end of the day, common sense and experience suggest that that may have social implications.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has left the Chamber, because I am about to quote the remarks that he made on 30 January. He said:
Those of us who practise in the criminal courts know that most criminal drunks commit their acts of violence in or immediately after those last moments of drinking-up time at a late hour."—[Official Report, 30 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 643.]
That is not entirely news, but at least it comes from an authoritative source— the person who represents that constituency and who is involved in the courts.
If an extra half-hour is relatively easily obtainable, there will be quite a lot of consumption at the end of the day. Many of the effects of that increased consumption—an unspecified amount—are bound to be felt in that last half-hour. Whatever the closing time, there will be that period to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred. People will be there late at night when violence, alas, is more likely to occur. The Bill does not refer to any possibility that remedial measures will be taken in relation to alcohol consumption and crimes of violence. Any hon. Member, any other person arid certainly the police know that there is a relationship between the two.
Unfortunately, we have all in our parliamentary and private lives come across the damaging relationship between over-consumption arid acts of violence, criminal damage and offences against the person. That relationship is not quantified, but it exists. Not long ago, the whole country was staggered by an enormous act of violence in the Ealing vicarage case. One of the people involved was a former constituent, because I was the Member for Acton, which is now represented by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). Those people tanked up on drink before the incident. I know that the consumption


took place not on licensed premises but in their home and, therefore, would be outside the scope of the Bill, but we know that it had that effect.
When I was the Member for Acton I was involved in a case, similar to cases with which all hon. Members are familiar of after-hours drinking. The publican wrongly allowed after-hours drinking and a murder occurred in the bar. I had on my hands the cases of two fatherless families—in one the person was dead and in the other the person who had perpetrated the crime had gone to prison—one widow and one virtual widow. We all know that the relationship between rapid consumption late at night and violence is strong. If any hon. Member does not agree, he should go to his local hospital's casualty unit.
Newham has some well-conducted clubs connected with political parties. The Labour and Conservative parties have well-conducted clubs which do not come into any of the categories about which I have spoken. But there are other places, and not long ago some people bleeding profusely arrived at Newham general hospital. Not long after, others who had been involved in the affray in that club arrived by motor car and the affray continued inside the casualty unit. Blood spurted on to the walls, equipment was smashed up and staff were terrified. We must admit that hospitals are places where violence is now much more frequent. It relates either to personal disputes while people are waiting to be dealt with or to alcohol-related violence of the sort that I have described.
The House would be wrong to give a Second Reading to a Bill which virtually permitted a universal—I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood if he disagrees—extention of half an hour from 11 pm to 11.30 pm for licensed premises which applied for it.

Mr. John Ryman: Will my hon. Friend deal with two specific points? First, why should millions of decent, law-abiding people be prevented from social drinking on a wider scale simply because a relatively small proportion of criminals happen to be affected by drink? Secondly, his argument flies in the face of the example of Scotland, where the extension and relaxation of licensing laws has, according to the police, reduced crimes which are related to violence and drink.

Mr. Spearing: I shall deal with the Scottish point shortly. First, I shall deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) said about criminals. I suggest that, alas, a great deal of the difficulties between people which result in personal injury are not criminal in that people are professional or determined criminals. They probably happen as a result of personal arguments and difficulties which become criminal offences because there is damage to the person or property as a result of the altercation. In other words, I am talking not about habitual criminals, but people who are either convicted or charged with criminal behaviour in which alcohol plays a part. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley would agree that that is a well-established fact. To allow an extra half an hour, which would add to that risk, is something about which the House and the country must think clearly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley asked fairly why the vast majority of people should have to forgo their freedom of an extra half an hour of comfortably dringing to protect people who may abuse that half an

hour. That is the essence of his question. We may differ, but in view of the fact that alcohol is available—rightly or wrongly— relatively easily at off-licences or in a domestic environment, that is a price that many people would be willing to and probably should pay. After all, 11 pm is not early—it used to be much earlier than that—and a line must be drawn at some time. Anybody who has been involved in a motor accident, or who has been an innocent victim of somebody who has been tanked-up with alcohol, would agree with me that there should be some sort of social arrangement and that licensed hours should be limited within reasonable hours.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley and Conservative Members that that wide extension of licensing hours to 11.30 pm cannot but increase the amount of alcohol-related violence to the person and, alas, probably bad driving on our roads. That is an incontrovertible fact, of which the House should take note. For all these reasons we should pause before giving a Second Reading to the Bill. The relationships are clear.
The matter of Scotland was raised earlier in the debate. The statistics that were given need some comment. As I understand it, the statistics which have been used are those of drunken behaviour, or at least charges relating to drunken persons. As I understand it, other charges have increased, which may or may not be related to the consumption of alcohol. I have been told that the number of breach of the peace charges has increased by 16 per cent. and the number of petty assault charges has gone up by 20 per cent. I do not say that all or any of those charges were associated with alcohol, but a policeman charging a drunk involved in an incident in which a person was assaulted would probably charge the assailant with petty assault or breach of the peace rather than with being drunk. Therefore, I suggest that, although there may be some encouraging signs from the Scottish experience, it is not fully proven.
An hon. Member suggested in the previous debate that the police in Scotland approved of the change, but it turned out that they were happy because their work would be staggered over more hours and they would not have to deal with so many offences at the same time. That is a reasonable view for the police to hold, but I question whether it is a good answer in relation to the social context in which drink and violence must be placed.
I understand why the Bill has been proposed, but we must think carefully about the implications. The hon. Member for Eastwood has plucked out only one aspect of the matter. The repercussions cannot be known or discussed, though his speech suggests that the consumption of alcohol cannot but rise if the predictions about the employment effects are anywhere near correct, or even only 30 per cent. accurate.
The relationship between drink and violent crime, which we all deplore, is clear, and I do not believe that there is a sufficient case for giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Rob Hayward: I had the good fortune a couple of years ago to take part in a television debate with police officers from Strathclyde who have to deal with a part of Britain whose people have the reputation of being among the heaviest drinkers. The most senior officer was asked whether he would want to revert to the old drinking


laws in Scotland and he answered emphatically that the number of cases of violent crime resulting directly from drinking in pubs had decreased.
There remains a problem about overall alcohol consumption, because drink is generally available in supermarkets and other such places, but the Bill proposes only that pubs and licensed premises should be allowed to operate more flexibly.
There is undoubtedly a substantial anomaly in the law in England and Wales. The law was introduced during the first world war and licensing laws have moved on in other areas. It is not fair that tenants and managers of licensed premises should be restricted in ways that other people are not.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to crimes that may have resulted from drinking, but he was unable to confirm that the drink was consumed on licensed premises. There is a strong argument for saying that people in pubs drink in more controlled circumstances than do those who drink in other public areas or in their own homes.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman accepts what I said about drink bought in supermarkets; perhaps we are wrong to allow it to be so readily available in such places. However, the hon. Gentleman must accept that, although it is not possible to quantify the issue, everyone—and particularly women—knows to watch for the time that the pubs turn out. That has been the case for years and in some premises, not necessarily the majority, there is a significant connection between turning-out time and what happens afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman denies that fact, he should go along to his local hospital and see what happens.

Mr. Hayward: I do not deny it; I am aware of the problems. However, drinking establishments in Scotland are now much more civilised places than they were before the amendment of the Scottish licensing laws. The evolution in behaviour during the late-evening swill that we have seen there way well apply in England and Wales. At present the pressure is on the drinker to consume his drink by drinking-up time. Anyone who has visited a number of pubs recently will have seen large rounds being bought, which must be consumed by a specific time—which, in my part of the country, is normally 10.30 pm.
I was discussing restrictions as they apply to a number of locations. I am particularly concerned about sports clubs and other clubs with limited licences. Such clubs regularly have customers on only two or three nights a week. My constituency contains a number of rugby clubs—the Barton Hill and the Whitehall— and Cleve and Kingswood, among others, are just outside. The restrictions on those clubs are so heavy that often, when a rugby game finishes, they are not allowed to serve beer immediately; they must wait for half an hour or even an hour. The Bill will allow a degree of flexibility, which I consider appropriate.
One of my local newspapers, the Kingswood Observer, did a survey of attitudes towards drink. In my area, where non-conformism is very strong, a good many questions are raised. It would be reasonable to expect that such an area would be the most opposed to a change in the licensing laws, and it was therefore significant that more than two thirds of those asked were willing to see more flexibility. That is a reflection of the views about the need for change.
I have substantial experience of treatment of, and involvement with, alcoholics and others in need of treatment because of their addiction to alcohol. I do not speak with a personal or vested interest, but I have seen both sides of the issue. I believe that there is a need for change. However, I have seen the impact of excessive alcohol consumption on the individual. I do not consider that extending the licensing hours in the premises identified in the Bill will exacerbate the problem, because I believe that the problem of alcohol abuse is outside those areas.

Mr. Ted Garrett: As a supporter of this simple Bill, let me express my complete support for it. When I was a licensing magistrate, 30-odd years ago, I used to think of the rigmarole that would have to be undertaken before a modest extension of licensing hours—perhaps half an hour—could be obtained. The Bill will save numerous man hours for licensing magistrates, and we must remember that is does not seek to extend the total hours of consumption.
In the north-east— where you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have our constituencies—there seems to be no widespread opposition to the proposals. It is felt that they would particularly benefit the few industrial areas that have not been decimated. The variation in licensing hours would probably be for a certain period—say a year—and the licencee would then have to apply to vary them. That would suit the licensing magistrates, and it would certainly suit those in the areas where we have only one growth industry, namely, tourism: I can recommend the northernmost counties for tourism.
The variation would have some impact on jobs and on the violence mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I was beginning to become distressed at the thought that my hon. Friend lived in the most violent part of the United Kingdom, but I am sure that A is not that bad in Newham. No doubt the people of Newham, when they read his speech, will be somewhat alarmed, but I trust that he will allay their fears.
I want the Bill to get its Second Reading and to make progress. We have tried, but failed, to achieve such a measure before. Sooner or later, even if this Bill makes no progress, I am sure that this modest variation in licensing laws will be accepted.

Mr. James Couchman: As always when I speak on licensing matters, I declare my interest as a multiple licensee and the operator of five public houses in London. It is important to put that on the record.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) correctly made much of the importance of regulation. I have been a licensee for 15 years and been responsible for upholding the licensing laws in the most regulated place where one can to go to drink—the public house. There is little drunkeness in the pubs these days, and I am glad about that, as are my managers and staff.
It is tempting to repeat the arguments expressed in our debate on 27 February, when we discussed the excellent motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). That motion sought to twin the two issues of licensing reform and the abuse of alcohol. We


enjoyed the debate in which both halves of the equation were discussed without the pressure of a legislative proposal.
On the same day, a modest measure, initiated by Lord Montgommery, was introduced to allow people to enjoy a drink with a late lunch or early supper in a bona fide restaurant during the afternoon break. All the stages of that Bill were completed on that occasion. I believe that that measure has added to the anomalies that prevail in licensing.
The Licensing (Amendment) Bill seeks in a sensible way to iron out some of the anomalies between pubs, restaurants and hotels, and between the law as it applies to Scotland and as it applies to England and Wales. I think that the changes proposed are sensible.
I shall give a brief example of why I think that the changes are important. Two of the pubs of which I am licensee and tenant are within 600 yds of each other in the City of Westminster, close to the House. One does its business at lunchtime rather than in the evening and at the weekend. The other pub does its main trade in the evening and at the weekend. Both pubs are obliged to be open at precisely the same hours, even though that does not allow the most sensible use of the hours available. I do not want to extend the opening hours for those public houses, but I should like the flexibility to open at hours that suit the custom available.
The City of London is an extreme example. No one is around after about 7.30 pm, yet public houses in the City of London are obliged to open at the same hours as pubs in surburban residential areas. That makes no sense.
Not many licensees will choose to extend their opening hours significantly. There might be a tendency to look for an extra half hour on Friday or Saturday, when more people are out and about and would like to drink a little later. From Monday to Thursday there will be little call for longer opening hours.
There is an anomaly between the law for public houses and for off-licences. Off-licences are able to open from 9 am until the terminal hour for public houses without any mandatory break. Off-licences enjoy much longer hours and are much less controlled. The time is long since past when that anomaly should be set aside.
There was talk of the brewers exerting pressure on tenant licensees and managers to open for all the hours that will be available as a result of the Bill. I believe that the problem has been sorted out. I believe that the Brewers Society, the National Licensed Victuallers Association and the National Association of Licensed House Managers will be able to agree the matter in a sensible and proper manner.
The hon. Member for Newham, South was slightly disparaging about the employment that could be created as a result of my hon. Friend's Bill. Already some pubs are open during non-licensed hours for the sale of things other than alcohol. Some pubs in London open for breakfast. In the afternoons, some people might like the opportunity to go into a pub, not necessarily for an alcoholic drink, but to enjoy the ambience and the appointment of the public house and to have afternoon tea. If there is an extended use of those expensive facilities throughout the land, there will be a need to run a second shift of workers. It is that second shift that will result in the additional employment that has been suggested by the supporters of the Bill.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I support my hon. Friend's Bill.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I wish to intervene briefly in this debate, because the question of Scotland has arisen constantly in these deliberations. At the risk of sounding exceptionally pompous and conceited, may I say that it is a subject that I have been concerned about as a magistrate and as a member of the licensing court in the city of Glasgow for many years. Therefore, as the Scottish experience is of consequence to our deliberations today, I hope that the minute contribution that I shall make will assist hon. Members to make up their minds one way or another.
Before I came to the House I was a magistrate in the city of Glasgow and a member of the licensing court and a town councillor for 12 years. As a result of my experience, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), then Secretary of State for Scotland, and I decided to introduce a Bill on licensing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to that Act.
If I have a quarrel with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and his hon. Friends, it is that I would have preferred the measure to deal with the problem throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Precisely the same rules and regulations for England, Wales and Scotland should be introduced at the same time. There should be no messing about. This is one kingdom and we should have one set of rules and regulations.
When my right hon. Friend and I introduced our Bill, we did not ask the Whips to put any pressure on our colleagues. We had many free votes. As a representative of a working-class area since 1952, either on the town council or in Parliament, I can truthfully say that that Bill made a substantial improvement to the position in Scotland.
I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about the rise in crimes that he foresees as a result of this measure being passed by the House. However, there are two types of crime—crime of violence and social crime. My hon. Friend referred to crimes of violence, but I can tell him that in Scotland there has not been much of an increase in such crime, if any. Moreover, there has been a massive decrease in social crime.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood and other Scottish colleagues will recall that when our licensing laws were tight with regard to opening hours, one would see men coming out of the large public works with their pay packets in their hands on a Friday night at half past five and, because of the limitation in drinking time, instead of going home, making straight for the public house.
Most of them—99·9 per cent.—were sensible. They would have a social drink with their friends and go home, but the hon. Member for Eastwood and I know that many were not sensible and would sit there and drink away their whole pay packet before 9 o'clock. It was a matter of, "Get as much drink into you as you can." I need not remind my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that our drinking habits in Scotland are slightly different from those in England. Whereas in England beer is regarded as the most refreshing of all drinks, in Scotland the water of life is a harsher brand. So the half and a half pint syndrome can be expensive and sometimes explosive.
I can recall, as a magistrate, sitting in court on a Monday morning and having to deal with men who had gone home with hardly a penny of their pay packet left and sometimes beaten up their wives. That is as much a crime as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell the House a little more of his experience. As he will know, I was concerned about the other end of the day. Can he tell the House what happened between 11 pm and 11.30 pm, before the change and subsequently, according to his experience in Glasgow and what he has heard? Would the same provisions apply to England, with the almost automatic extension of half an hour? My right hon. Friend emphasised the great differences in social habits and expectations between the two areas.

Mr. MacKenzie: I can only add that the increase in drinking hours, or, to put it more precisely, the spread over the number of hours allowed for drinking, has assisted in Scotland. It has been a positive change. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastwood has the figures more readily to hand than I have, but so far as I can see, from my contact with chief constables and police forces, and from my experience as a magistrate, the change has considerably helped working people in Scotland. That is what I hope this bill is all about.
In a sense, licensing hours in Scotland were peculiar. If one was a working man who went to a pub, one could drink only until a certain time, but if the person was a wee bit wealthier, he could go into a hotel and sit there and drink until the Lord called him. That shows the social division.
The only point that I want to make as a magistrate and a former member of the licensing court, having watched what has happened in my constituency and others, is that there has been a considerable improvement in Scotland for working people and their families since my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan and I introduced the Bill some years back, and I commend the Bill before us to the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the House.
I should like to reply briefly to the debate. I thank the supporters of the Bill, on both sides of the House, who have supported it and spoken in favour of it in the two debates, I thank particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who spoke with such personal authority as the Minister of State involved when the licensing changes in Scotland were made.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) may find it surprising that I agreed with the great bulk of what he said. I hope by the force of argument, to persuade him to join us on the Committee rather than force a Division today, although we are all aware that the hon.
Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has been waiting patiently to speak. We hope that he will have the opportunity at least to speak on his Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and his kind invitation, but can he enlighten the House on one matter? There are two elements to his Bill. The first is essentially one of flexibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) referred. I concentrated on the second, which is of specific concern. It was about near or largely automatic extension. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are two separate aspects, although they may be linked in the Bill, which should be examined later on their separate merits?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right. We shall consider the individual aspects of the Bill in Committee.
I thank the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who spoke forcefully on behalf of the north-east. I wish to emphasise that the Bill has all-party support. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked how many licensed premises would take up the variation orders. It is difficult to be absolute in making a forecast. I expect that some would and some would not. Some would perhaps take up the option in the summer in tourist areas and not at other times of the year. Managers are content with the Bill.
Questions have been asked about employment implications. The Scottish evidence is that one third of the pubs in Scotland employ one extra member of staff as a result of the flexibility that now prevails. The main concern of the hon. Member for Wallsend was the implication for crime. He spoke also about automaticity.
Practical experience has been gained in Scotland, and recently at a meeting in my constituency I spoke to some policemen who have real practical experience. During the meeting a constituent asked the local police what Governments have done in the past few years that have helped the police. Without prompting, the officer who replied referred to the Act that the right hon. Member for Rutherglen, with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), brought on to the statue book. The officer said that it was one of the best things that Governments have done to help the police in recent years in Scotland.
I emphasise that there is no automaticity about the variation orders. I stress the importance of subsection (3), which states:
licensing justices shall not make a variation order unless satisfied that it is desirable to do so having regard to the social circumstances … or to activities taking place in, the locality in which the premises are situated.
The orders would apply for only one year and complaints could be made by the police, for example, to the magistrates court. They could seek to have the variation orders stopped if there were substantial objections.
We are not talking about a free-for-all—not that the hon. Member for Newham, South implied that we were— and we are not talking about universal extension. Instead, we are discussing a modest and controlled measure of increased flexibility.
The most important argument in favour of the Bill is one that has been advanced by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is directed to the importance of the role of a pub or club. I should emphasise that the club movement fully supports the Bill. It is important that controlled premises are provided for the consumption of


alcohol. There is a serious problem of alcohol abuse, and part of it can be attributed to consumption of liquor that is purchased at off-licences. When this is done, the liquor can be consumed anywhere. Controlled premises have an important social role and are an important feature of this modest Bill. I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Newham, South to become a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, if he so wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Parental Leave Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased that, despite the long list of private Members' Bills on the Order Paper—some of them quite contentious— the House has reached the Second Reading of my Bill. I am also pleased to have the opportunity again to put to the House the case for parental leave. I advanced the detailed case under the ten minutes rule on 11 February, and, in view of the time, I shall not repeat all the details because I want particularly to hear the Minister's response. I hope that it will be positive, that he will recognise the enormous value of parental leave, and at least accept it in principle. After all, 10 of the 12 Common Market countries have some sort of parental leave provision.
The EEC issued a draft directive for member countries to bring parental leave into effect. Until now the Government have blocked the implementation of that draft directive in this country. Britain is virtually the odd man out in denying working fathers leave for child care. Working mothers would also be big gainers from these parental leave provisions.
The Bill's eligibility criteria by which people could receive parental leave entitlement would be met by the parent of a child under two years of age, the parent of a disabled child under five, and the parent of a child under five if the child has been adopted. Within a two-year period, the entitlement would be 13 weeks for each parent, if both are in full-time employment. That 13-week period would not be transferable; each parent would be entitled to 13 weeks. If that employee were a single parent the net entitlement would be 26 weeks. That provision is vital. I would also allow four weeks for an employed parent, if the other parent is not eligible—for example, if he or she is unemployed. The Bill would help part-time workers on a pro rata basis. It gives them the right to return to the same, or similar, work after an absence for child care. That provision is also important.
The benefits for individual working parents are enormous. I shall not repeat the list that I gave on 11 February, but I shall explain those benefits briefly. The Bill would improve equal opportunities for women in employment and it would help to overcome the damaging discontinuity of employment that is suffered by women after childbirth. I should like to give the House three facts about that. First, the average woman with two children spends seven years out of the labour force because there are no options for returning to work. Parental leave would give women that opportunity, and at least help in that respect. Secondly, it is estimated that a women loses about £135,000 during her working life because of loss of employment. Thirdly, Britain has one of the lowest employment rates for women with children. Our rate is much lower than the rates comparable countries.
Parental leave also helps the fairer distribution of responsibilities for child care between the parents and improves family and child welfare. That is vital. We are approaching a general election in which, I am sure, the family will be on the agenda. Parental leave helps the family. We all know of the increasing problems of child


abuse. Parental leave recognises the father's role in and responsibility for child care, and it would help fathers to fulfil those responsibilities by giving them rights.
I know that the Government have claimed that this parental leave scheme would hurt employers. However, that is not the case, because at the moment employers lose many of the skills that women bring to employment and which they could bring back to their place of work after child care. The cost of losing those skills which could otherwise he retained is not inconsiderable; in fact, a substantial amount of money is involved.
Furthermore, fewer than 700,000 babies are born in this country every year. Not all of the parents are employed. Therefore, they would not be eligible, or would not take up their rights. If one sets those 700,000 parents against the total working population, one realises that the eligibility level would be quite small.
In 1982, the Policy Studies Institute reported to the Government on the maternity leave provisions that were introduced by the Employment Protection Act 1975 and stated that there was
remarkably little impact on employers relative to all the other influences upon them.
It would be the same for family leave provision.
I understand that small businesses may have problems, but the Bill provides for the Treasury either to share the cost with the employer or to take it on for small businesses. The Common Market scheme costs between £31 million and £45 million. I admit that my Bill would cost more because it is better, but it would be well below 0 . 1 per cent. of our total wages and salaries bill. The cost would be well worth the advantages. Indeed, our competitors are introducing parental leave because they see those advantages.
Since I introduced the Bill there has been little publicity, but already there has been widespread support. Many local authorities and Civil Service unions support it. The Maternity Alliance, to which many organisations are affiliated, also supports and has been a principal backer of the Bill. Only recently the National Council for One Parent Families has sent a letter to many Members of Parliament urging them to support the Bill.
I understand that the Government may disagree with the details of the Bill, but I urge them to support Second Reading today and to sort out those details in Committee. Let us get on a par with other European countries and bring some of those benefits for working parents into operation. Whatever happens today, statutory parental leave will inevitably come to Britain. I urge the Government to let it take this first step today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on introducing the Bill. I cannot commend it to the House, but he has raised a subject of importance and I am pleased to have this opportunity to give the Government's response to it.
I am a little surprised that so few Labour Members are present.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Name them.

Mr. Hogg: I heard a voice below the Gangway, but I am not in the least bit disposed to name that hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Leyton told the House that the measure had the warm-hearted support of trade unions and others. Obviously, no Labour Members are sponsored by the unions in question. As I look across the Chamber I ask myself where those sponsored hon. Members are to support the Bill that their unions are so keen to have on the statute book. I ask myself whether the unions in question are getting their money' worth. There are more Conservative Members present, so perhaps the unions would do well to consider whether they should sponsor some of us.
It is perhaps desirable to put the Bill in its proper context. The hon. Gentleman told us about the Bill's detail, so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not go through it clause by clause. Nevertheless, we need to know something about its genesis. The Bill is based on proposals originally contained in a draft European Community directive. It states that there will be at least three months' parental leave for each parent consequential on the birth or adoption of a child. It was contemplated that leave would normally be taken within the first two years of the child's life. But the draft directive made provision for special procedures to be laid down in the case of adopted or handicapped children. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would agree that that is at least an understandable approach.
The draft directive was first published in 1983. There was then the kind of process of consultation and discussion with which the House is familiar. As a consequence, the draft directive was revised in 1984. Again, following that process, there was discussion within the European Community, but unfortunately it proved to be impossible to come to a unanimous conclusion. In Decemer 1985, there was a meeting of the Social Affairs Council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General suggested that the proposal be considered by the Commission's new unit to assess the impact of new regulations on small and medium-sized businesses. My right hon. and learned Friend was manifestly right to direct the attention of the European Community to an important consideration—namely, the cost burden that a proposal of this kind imposes on small business. 1 shall refer in a moment to the detailed provisions.
The Labour party and the hon. Member for Leyton, who does his best, are somewhat cavalier about the interests and burdens of small business. The Labour party and the hon. Member for Leyton do not appear to grasp the financial and practical burdens that a proposal of this kind might impose on small businesses. Of course, that is a massive divide between the parties. Conservative Members place great emphasis on the generation of wealth.

Mr. Sedgemore: Profit before care.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall have a few words to say about him as well. He has never shown any desire to have regard to the special interests of small businesses.

Mr. Roger Gale: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) will find that he will lose his seat, as he has done previously.

Mr. Gale: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the burden that such a scheme might place upon small


business. I also have sympathy for the principle involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of scheme that has been introduced in some countries on the continent, which are unfunded but give a right to leave as opposed to paid leave, might be worth considering?

Mr. Hogg: Such matters are for consideration by the Government. The Government's broad view on the matter is that such points should be negotiated between employers and employees. The fundamental difference between the attitude of the Government and of the Labour party on this matter is that the Labour party wishes to impose upon industry and small business——

Mr. Sedgemore: Decent standards.

Mr. Hogg: Let the hon. Gentleman consider what the consequences are. As there are only three Opposition Members in the Chamber, they can hardly be said to be here. The alliance is wholly absent, as it has been for the greater part of this and previous debates. The Labour party, which would put industry into a straitjacket—a rigid formula—believes that that will not have adverse consequences. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch laughs.

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman is a joke.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that I am pleasing the hon. Gentleman. Let him look at the consequences of his action.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend in a moment.
Let the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch look at the consequences of his action. We are dealing with small businesses.

Mr. Sedgemore: Slovenly country.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman said, "Slovenly country." If his policies were given statutory expression, an enormous burden would be imposed upon those who are active in the creation of wealth and new jobs.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am disturbed by the terms of the Bill and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that the Conservative party believes in profits before care. I thought that care was paid for out of profits. What is caring about a parent who decides, on the basis of the Bill, to neglect his two-year-old child for 39 weeks of the year and then to take a fully paid holiday for 13 weeks of the year to look after it?

Mr. Cohen: rose——

Mr. Hogg: As I should have expected, my hon. and learned Friend has made an extremely perceptive criticism of the Bill. He is wholly right. When criticism of that kind is taken into account, together with the resource implications—

Mr. Sedgemore: Only a mindless moron would put it that way.

Mr. Hogg: That is not a very constructive comment to make in a debate of this kind. That is why the Labour party is falling into disrepute. If all that the hon.
Gentleman can do is to refer to my hon. and learned Friend in those terms, it means that the Labour party is not doing either itself or the issue justice.

Mr. Cohen: rose——

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Leyton has been popping up and down, so of course I shall let him intervene.

Mr. Cohen: A large part of the Minister's response has been devoted to the burdens that will be placed on small businesses. Does he agree that my Bill provides for the Treasury to lift the burden off small businesses, which would lead to care being given without small businesses being hurt?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman blames me for concentrating on small businesses. I am concentrating on them for two reasons. First, they matter. Secondly, his hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, suggested that the Bill would not impose a burden on small businesses. If his hon. Friend below the Gangway had kept his mouth shut and concentrated on matters that are clearly important, I should not have spent so much time on that part of the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: Of course I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Fairbairn: If I am a moron, surely the Bill would make more sense if my parents were to be paid by their employers so that they could look after me for 52 weeks of the year. A remark of that kind, coming from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who is one of the principal proctalgics in this place, seems to demonstrate that he cares for nothing— far less for reason.

Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend, subject only to this caveat and proviso: that even my hon. and learned Friend's parents might recoil from the prospect of supporting him, or even entertaining him, for 52 weeks of the year.

Mr. Sedgemore: My father is dead.

Mr. Fairbairn: So is mine.

Mr. Hogg: Dear, oh dear. I am very sorry that we are hearing about all these domestic details. If the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch thinks that that was a constructive intervention, that is a matter for him, but I think that the rest of the House will form an adverse view of what he said.
We have to form a view about this issue. The Government are not opposed to parental leave, but we are opposed to imposing it on industry by methods that are bound to cause very substantial on-costs. We should like there to be consultation between employers and employees and we should like voluntary agreements to be entered into. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Leyton, but this Government will not impose substantial additional burdens on the small business sector. We attach great importance to the prosperity of that sector. The Bill would put that prosperity at substantial risk.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I


congratualte the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on introducing it. In an earlier intervention from a sedentary position the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) shouted, "Name them", referring to those Opposition Members who are here to take part in the debate. We should put his name on the record for a start. We should also put on record the names of the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Opposition Chief Whip, and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who was here earlier. However, those who sit on the Liberal and Social Democratic party Benches, as well as Members of the other parties, so-called, are noticeably absent, as usual.
In his reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton, my hon. Friend the Minister emphasised the additional burden that he felt this measure would impose on small businesses.
I should like to draw attention to one branch of small business— agriculture— in which I must declare an interest as a farmer. I have some knowledge of the effects of what is proposed in the Bill. I employ approximately 15 people on my farm and, as a result of the enormous progress that British farming has made over the last 10 years in increasing its productivity, there are no laggards around. Everybody is doing a vital and important job, is full-time employed and working considerable overtime.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 April.

DRUG COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (PROTECTION OF BIRDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

Orders of the Day — North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Neil Thorne: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a well-known supporter of the North Atlantic Alliance. Allies need to co-operate with one another in many ways. They need to co-operate on the battlefield and in the preparation of their munitions arid equipment. That co-operation is an important part of the Alliance. Facing us are the Warsaw pact countries which are dominated by the Soviet Union. A large measure of interoperability exists between the countries in the Warsaw pact in terms of equipment. Indeed, their interoperability is total and we cannot neglect this aspect of our defence.
When we have to decide what equipment to use, the choice initially depends on market forces within the Alliance. The companies that produce the equipment must carry out a large amount of research and production, and the Government have embarked upon a major exercise in cost cutting to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money. Neither the suppliers nor the services and certainly not the taxpayer would object to that. It is important that the matter is dealt with fairly and reasonably.
I think that my hon. Friend the Minister knows that I am anxious about the two-way street—that is to say, the sale and passage of equipment from the United States of America to Britain. We know that for many years a flood of equipment was purchased by the British taxpayers for our defence and, at the same time, we were selling only a small trickle of equipment to the United States. This has gone on for many years. However, I am delighted to find that the Government have been making strenuous efforts, with the assistance of Mr. Peter Levene and others, to redress the balance. There is still a long way to go before we can acknowledge that that is a reality.
In any alliance one must expect fairness and evenhandedness between the partners. I am not suggesting that the United States of America should purchase all its equipment overseas, but it should be prepared to purchase a proportion of its equipment equivalent to the amount that it sells overseas. My sole criticism of the Trident programme is that we did not enter into a direct offset arrangement when the contract was agreed. I advocated that at the time, so Ministers will be well aware of that need. I greatly regret that we did not make that demand then. It would have been particularly helpful to us in subsequent negotiations, and it would have had a marked effect on negotiations on the contract for the multiple subscriber equipment that the United States decided to pruchase from overseas. In the end, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, for some extraordinary reason the United States chose outdated analogue equipment because of its price, not because of the quality of the equipment.
Why was the price so high? The competing companies in the United States were required to have a local partner. In the case of at least one British contestant, the difference between the bid that was accepted and the bid that the British company made was greater than the total cost of the equipment that it was to manufacture and supply.
In a true alliance, one should expect to work on equal terms. It is wrong for the United States to force United Kingdom suppliers to choose a local American contractor as a partner, unless we do the same. I understand that we


rarely require United States contractors to accept a local partner here for any of the equipment that they supply, and I do not think that the United States should impose such conditions either.
In the case that I have mentioned, the contract was lost. The French, who had tied up the deal with another contractor in the United States, were able to undercut it, but the technology that they supplied was outdated at the time of purchase and will grow progressively more so. It was 100 per cent. analogue equipment, whereas the Ptarmigan alternative is 80 per cent. digital and 20 per cent. analogue. That is the next development in the area.
The problem is likely to get worse because of the enormous purchasing power of the United States. The Americans are now in the process of choosing more extensive battlefield equipment. Initially, they are trying to do that by means of their own local systems and through the operation of the single channel ground airborne radio system—SINCGARS. Compared with the most modern technology, that system is already outdated. The Americans have enormous resources and buying power. However, interoperability with the equipment used by the rest of NATO will not be obtained if United States forces have to take that equipment, because the other services in the NATO Alliance will not be able to communicate directly and fully with the United States, unless they adopt its outdated technology themselves.
Originally, SINCGARS was due to be introduced in 1990, but considerable slippage put that back to 1994. Because some pressure has been applied, it is now said that it may be ready by 1991. It is two or three years behind British equipment which has already been tested and is available because of research work carried out by various companies in Britain. It would be wrong if out-dated equipment were imposed on us, and thereby the British taxpayer.
A system called Raven has already been designed in Britain for the Australian forces. The Australian forces carried out considerable research to establish what they should buy to bring their forces up to date and into the 21st century. Following many trials, they decided to adopt a Plessey system based on the Plessey System 4000 as the basis for Raven. Raven is far advanced beyond the outdated SINCGARS. We should ask why.
The specification given by the American Government was relatively modest. They required the equipment merely to channel-hop so that it would be difficult for an enemy to pick up signals. By channel-hopping, it is possible to disguise messages being transmitted and thereby avoid much encoding and decoding, and to give a much clearer aspect of the battlefield.
The Plessey equipment has the advantage of many additional features, including maintenance sub-systems, frequency management facilities, frequency hopping, encryption abilities, null steering antenae, interference cancellation systems, burst transmissions and spread spectrum techniques, using low data rates. All those additional advantages have been built in to the Raven system and were not part of the specification for SINCGARS, which had a relatively low specification.
I understand that the United States has a requirement that the equipment should be capable of operating before breakdown on average for 1,200 hours. The best it has managed to reach so far on its limited equipment is 400

hours. The United States is now talking about the possibility of reaching 800 hours. The specification for Raven is more than 2,000 hours— a significant improvement. All those points show that we should make strong representations within the Alliance to ensure that we are not sold off with some outdated system, purely because it is provided by the might of the United States, when we have something much better to offer.
I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to ensure that our employment potential is reached, that the taxpayers get good value for money and that the equipment is obtained in this country. We have an excellent record which is second to none. For us to accept anything less than the best when other countries in Asia and elsewhere, particularly Australia, are actively buying the equipment that is being produced here would be entirely and utterly wrong. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to use his influence with the United States of America to ensure that it realises the seriousness of the situation and that it is prepared to accept and play its part in a true partnership.

Sir Antony Buck: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising this matter; and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
The interoperability of NATO is tied in with the two-way street. Almost every time that we speak on defence-related matters we pay a tribute to our United States allies because it keeps so many of its boys in Europe and it is the sheet anchor of NATO. However, it must start taking more of our European equipment. We must have more reality in the two-way street which, I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, ties in with the question of interoperability. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the question on interoperability that my hon. Friend has raised, and perhaps he will also touch on the two-way street.
We have sold a certain amount of equipment to the United States of America over the years. The biggest triumph was selling 113 Harrier aircraft to the United States of America. We are something of a pillar in NATO, and also something of a bridge between the European members of NATO and the United States of America because of the special relationship that we have with it. It is important— despite the fact that we owe so much to the United States of America— that there should be a balance in buying equipment, especially when— bearing in mind the case that my hon. Friend cited—that which is available on this side of the Atlantic is better than that available from the United States.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising this important and complex subject of the interoperability of NATO communications, which has military as well as economic implications. The degree of interoperability that is required within and between our national headquarters, sea, land and air forces becomes a far more complicated matter when placed in the context of communications between NATO commanders and the


assigned mixed forces of the Alliance. Appropriate security protection is a further significant military consideration.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Warsaw Pact has a high degree of interoperability which is not currently shared by the NATO allies. That is one of the advantages of a Communist system. A degree of uniformity can be imposed on allies, and one of the disadvantages of a more free market system is that everyone does his own thing. The desire and need to have interoperability is something that we fully recognise and are trying to implement.
Communication is not simply a voice and a telegraph. It is also increasingly data transfer and the linking of command and control information systems. The convergence of telecommunications and ADP technologies over the last few years have given us information technology. The House will appreciate that the governing factor affecting NATO's requirements for interoperability of communications is the need for allied formations and units to have the communications necessary to enable them to support and fight under the command of, or alongside, other formations and units, regardless of nationality. That ability gives the commanders the flexibility that is essential to the successful conduct of operations. National differences in the methods of exercising command, including organisational and staff procedures, must also be taken into account, together with difficulties that arise because of language differences.
The many considerations involved in communications interoperability are addressed within NATO under the council and defence planning committee, principally by the military committee and the NATO communications and information systems committee, and their supporting structures, in respect of military policy requirements and procedures; by the Conference of National Armament Directors and its supporting structure such as the armament groups and tri-service group in respect of standards, technologies, standardisation and collaborative opportunities, and by the Military Agency for Standardisation. These are the major forums. The Ministry of Defence pays an active part in all of them, with major support from industrial experts when appropriate. Our defence industry also plays its part in the NATO industrial advisory group advising the Conference of National Armament Directors.
NATO's strategic communications, those down to corps level, generally conform to CCITT— the Committee Communications International Telegraphique et Telephonique— and CCIR (Radio) standards. The major NATO commanders' strategic communication requirements are normally funded from the NATO infrastructure budget. This means that common equipment is purchased and provided, such as those facilities comprising the NATO integrated communications system. Below corps level, tactical communications have been provided by the NATO nations for their own forces at national expense and that led to a variety of systems, some to different standards causing problems of interoperability.
Solutions to those problems for existing and future systems have been sought in NATO both through NATO standardisation agreements—STANAGS—which define standards to be adopted to improve interoperability and through a Eurogroup Defence Ministers initiative to develop European communication standards known as

Eurocom standards. Outside of NATO, major support is also given by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and industry to the work of the International Standards Organisation so that civil and military standards are harmonised to the maximum possible extent to the benefit of all.
The Alliance has embarked on a three-step programme for interoperability in tactical communications. The first step is for analogue interconnections between any two nations, and STANAG 5040 standards and tactical principals are employed permitting connection by interface equipment at specific interface detachments. The next step, for digital interoperability— the burden of manning liaison vehicles and supporting radio relay link vehicles— will be obviated by direct radio relay interconnection between communication nodes of allied forces. This interconnection, called the digital gateway, is described in STANAG 4206 series. The final step will lead to the fielding of tactical systems built to common standards. Work is under way, under the auspices of the NATO tri-service group on communications-electronics equipment— TSGCEE— on the development of an outline NATO staff target for communications in the land combat zone post the year 2000; an Eurocom is helping in that endeavour.
Development of such common standards will give a unique opportunity to British industry to get access to the wider market place offered by our allies and there is little doubt the industrial competition will be fierce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred to Ptarmigan and Plessey, in his constituency, which has a big interest in the matter. 1 am sure he knows that Ptarmigan was initally deployed in 1984. It is a mobile, digital, area trunk communication system that will provide a secure, automatic switched network to support army and air tactical operations in north-west Europe. The system will handle command, control, air support and logistic information, providing communication by speech, facsimile, data and telegraph.
For the future, the NATO tri-service group on communications and electronic equipment and Eurocom are considering a programme of pre-feasibility studies in support of the outlined NATO staff target 2000. The United Kingdom is playing a leading part in this activity. It is now generally agreed that ONST 2000 will have to he implemented in an evolutionary way. With this in mind, it will be highly desirable for Ptarmigan's mid-life enhancements to be seen as a positive contribution to that goal.
In November 1985 it was announced that the consortium of Rockwell-Plessey had lost the bid for the supply of communication equipment to the United States army. Many people, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, were distressed about that. The winning bid was some $3 billion cheaper. Plessey bid only 20 per cent. of the total mobile subscriber equipment requirement, so no direct cost comparison is possible between Ptarmigan and the French RITA system, which formed part of the successful bid.
My hon. Friend mentioned that Plessey had been forced to find an American partner, and that the Americans often did not reciprocate by supplying equipment to us. Consideration must be given to that.
Plessey, and indeed the Government, were disappointed by the result, but it is likely that the company will gain


sales from Ptarmigan derivatives and associated future generations of area communication equipment such as its multirole system, which it has developed as a third-generation system using the same well-proven system concepts and taking advantage of updated technology. The new range of products consists of circuit, message and packet switches. The new equipment is able to provide a comparable performance to its predecessors, while offering the advantages of a dramatic reduction in size, weight, power consumption and cost. Improved modular concepts in hardware and software have also been incorporated, which increases the flexibility of the product and allows it to be progressively enhanced to support future C31 requirements. A number of overseas orders have been placed for defence communication projects incorporating multirole system switches.
My hon. Friend referred to the United Kingdom being somehow forced to buy SINCGARS. The United Kingdom is using Ptarmigan and Clansman, and there is no question of our buying SINCGARS. The Ministry is also exploring the use of frequency-hopping techniques in the battlefield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) mentioned the two-way street and the strong desire that we should reciprocate all that is supplied by the United States. The latest figure is down to a ratio of 1·5: 1, so we are down to a very low ratio. It has been more than 2:1.
That brings us to the question of international standards. In the strategic area, standards are largely based on the open systems interconnection reference model, which has been prepared by the International Standards Organisation. The Ministry of Defence has recently issued a statement of intent on support of standards for OSI. These standards are designed to allow the exchange of information between information systems regardless of manufacturer or geographical location.
It is important for suppliers of information technology systems to recognise that it is the MOD's intention to adopt ISO OSI standards as they become sufficiently mature, and towards this aim the MOD is funding work to enhance the military features. This policy relates specifically to non-operational and strategic operational IT systems. Tactical IT systems will be expected to comply with OSI standards as far as is practicable, but the tactical environment does not currently allow adherence to the full set of OSI standards. This statement of intent reflects the belief that that is the most effective way of ensuring the

widest possible choice of products and suppliers, while at the same time ensuring that the MOD is able to achieve its overall aim of using IT effectively, and securing the best long-term value for money.
The first of a series of standard NATO agreements (STANAG) giving an overview of the NATO reference model for open systems interconnection was recently promulgated after ratification. Further agreements are expected within the course of the next year, and the United Kingdom is the lead nation in over 50 per cent. of these interoperability standards. The work has relied heavily on the general international activities being pursued via the Standards bodies in each NATO national capital, and on close and regular industrial Government discussions.
To demonstrate international progress, this month the United States Department of Defence has announced, in conjunction with their Government open systems interconnection programme, that future systems— including command and control—will have to install the complete range of ISO protocols in line with the NATO STANAG, although these will need augmenting for tactical systems. We are making progress on that front.
Turning now to the question of international competitive bidding for NATO infrastructure-funded contracts, every NATO nation which acts as the host nation is bound by the principles on which NATO international competitions are run. Those principles include the "Principle of Non Discrimination", which states that eligible firms from other NATO countries must be given no less opportunity to submit their bids than national firms, and that tenders submitted by such foreign firms must not be treated in a less favourable way than those of national competitors.
Should a specification issued by a host nation discriminate against other NATO nations' firms, the nations concerned can seek a review of the specification by the NATO international staff, to bring about amendments to the specification removing the discrimatory elements. British firms engaged in bidding for NATO infrastructure-funded contracts normally keep closely in touch with MOD officials and our national representatives in NATO to make sure that their rights under the principle of nondiscrimination are upheld and they are given strong support when their complaint is justified.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I hope—

The Motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half a hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock.